solicitude and alarm upon the numerous measures introduced and urged upon Congress which would work a hardship upon all of them, and in many instances would result in a suspension of business that of itself would be very greatly detrimental not only to the employed and the employer but to all those who come in contact with and rely upon either: Therefore be it Resolved by the Manufacturers' Bureau of Indiana in conference assembled, To consider the best interests of the manufacturers and, in so doing, of the men that they employ, that we look upon the bill introduced by Representative Gardner, of New Jersey, being House Bill No. 15651, as far-reaching in its results, harmful and vicious in its operation. Resolved, That in our judgment if this bill becomes a law it would drive from the field of Government bidding hundreds of concerns now relying upon that in part, and limit such bidding to a small number of concerns so well equipped and fully capitalized that they could submit to the strain, while it would be impossible for others to compete. Resolved, That the enactment of such a law by Congress and its enforcement would tend to induce or compel the extension of legislation beyond the field of Congressional enactment into the domain of purely State legislation, and introduce an element that under existing circumstances would be greatly detrimental not only to the interests of this association but to the men whom it employs and other people who deal with this association and its employees. Resolved, That in the opinion of this bureau all legislation in the nature of class legislation is unwise and detrimental to the interests of the whole, and we therefore earnestly request the House Committee on Labor to grant full time and full hearing upon the proposed enactment before it shall be reported to the House. Resolved, That copies of this resolution shall be forthwith sent to each Member of Congress from this State and each member of the Committee of Labor of the House of Representatives, including its chairman. [Ilsley-Doubleday & Co., manufactureres of railroad oils and lubricants.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. NEW YORK, March 13, 1908. DEAR SIR: I desire to enter my protest against the enactment of bill H. R. 15651, introduced by you, as I consider said bill would be detrimental to both the interests of my employees and myself. Yours, very respectfully, ILSLEY-DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, [The Ireland & Matthews Manufacturing Company, stove trimmings, sheet metal goods.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, DETROIT, MICH., February 19, 1908. Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We desire to enter our protest against House bill No. 15651, limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics for the United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia. We protest on the grounds that an enforcement of such an act would be decided invasion on the rights of the citizens of the United States, and also detrimental to the business of this country. We protest on the grounds that an enforcement of such an act would be tract. It is also class legislation, and undoubtedly would lead to more radical legislation of the same character. Hoping that our protests may be carefully considered, we remain, Yours, very truly, THE IRELAND & MATTHEWS MFG. Co., F. T. DUCHARME, Treasurer. [Illinois Malleable Iron Company.] CHICAGO, ILL., February 19, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We trust that you will not push the eight-hour bill through the House. Such legislation is for the few, and against the interests of the many. Yours, respectfully, ILLINOIS MALLEABLE IRON Co., [The Imperial Brass Manufacturing Company.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, 46 CHICAGO, ILL., February 20, 1908. Chairman House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We desire to express our disapproval of the proposed so-called ' eight-hour bill," feeling that it would seriously interfere with the prosperity of our business, which of course means the prosperity of our employees, as well as our stockholders. We believe if the proposed bill is passed, that it would operate disastrously to the very parties whom it is intended to benefit and consider it unwise, uncalled for, and dangerous. Yours, very truly, THE IMPERIAL BRASS MFG. CO., [Imperial Laundry.] ST. LOUIS, Mo., February 28, 1908. Hon. J. J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: If you can consistently do so, we would respectfully ask you to use your influence against Gardner bill H. R. 15651, which will be highly detrimental to ours, as well as the business interests of the country if it becomes law. Very respectfully, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, C. W. BRIGHT & BROS. [S. C. Irving.] SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., March 3, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I note that there is an attempt being made in Congress of differentiating between the manufacturing trusts and the labor trusts. As an employer of labor, and also as one who has been an employee, I strongly protest against any such distinction being made, especially in view of the fact that while the manufacturing trusts are being operated by genuine citizens, the labor trusts are owned and controlled by foreigners who have become citizens through no love of this country, but in order to give scope to their socialistic and anarchistic ideas that have been bred under the tyrannical governments of Europe. I am, sincerely yours, S. C. IRVING. [Ice and Cold Machine Company.] Hon JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. ST. LOUIS, March 13, 1908. DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to the Gardner bill, H. R. 15651, which proposes to put a yoke around the neck of the manufacturer, in the West more especially, where the country needs building up, improving, and the days are not long enough to do the work required. We most emphatically wish to protest against this bill, and are writing our Representatives and Senators to that effect. It will be a millstone hung to the neck of the progressive man in the West and those who are upbuilding the country. P. DEC. BALL. Respectfully, yours, [The International Pottery Company.] TRENTON, N. J., March 9, 1908. The Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to protest most earnestly against the passage of the eighthour bill, which is in the hands of your committee. We are satisfied that ultimately it would work great hardship upon the manufacturers, and competing as we do most actively with foreign labor, we are afraid it would have a very disastrous effect upon us in the efforts which we are making to hold competitive markets. Very truly, yours, THE INTERNATIOAL POTTERY COMPANY, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, [Manufacturing Jewelers' Association.] Chairman Committee on Labor, NEWARK, N. J., February 18, 1908. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We notice with extreme regret that you have reintroduced practically the same objectionable eight-hour bill, No. 15651, against which we have protested for years, and we have twice sent a committee to Washington to oppose before your committee. While we do not contract for Government work, we are most vitally affected, as are all manufacturers of luxuries, by anything that unsettles our staple industries. In these times of stress anything that adds to the uncertainties likely to ruin important industries is worse than ill advised. With the financial strain still upon all lines of manufacture and the great majority of our plants only able to run with largely reduced forces and on part time, we need rest from agitation above all things, and most earnestly hope your committee will not add to the embarrassment of manufacturers in our own State, as favorable action on this proposed legislation would certainly do at this time. On behalf of the Manufacturing Jewelers' Association. GEO. R. HowE, President. [Jackson & Church Company, Machinists, Founders.] SAGINAW, MICH., March 3, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We notice an eight-hour bill is before the Committee of Labor of which you are the chairman. In reference to the same would say we are very much opposed to the agitation for an eight-hour day. This is simply an entering wedge for a universal eight-hour day. If this should be secured, agitators and cheap politicians would immediately start agitation for a seven or six hour day. Manufacturers and employers of labor are kept in turmoil all the time in order that a cheap lot of politicians and labor agitators may be kept before and get a living out of the public. We have no objections to a short work day when the labor is arduous or hazardous, but in the average manufacturing plant the work is not hard or confining. In the demand for a shorter work day, the reason is given that men want more time with their families and to improve their minds, but in our experience and observation we have never known of a case when the men were not perfectly willing and anxious to work the extra hour or two providing they got extra pay. No manufacturing business with which we are familiar can afford to have two hours per day cut off their time of production. As you understand, taxes, insurance, etc., constitute part of what we call overhead expense, goes on regardless whether we run eight or ten hours per day; but if the plant is operated eight hours per day the cost of manufacturing has greatly increased, and this increased burden is placed on the long-suffering public. How much longer the public will stand it in order to keep a few politicians and labor agitators employed we do not know, but we do know that if we could get out the money we have invested we would not put a dollar in any business that would bring us in direct contact with labor. We believe the rank and file of employees are satisfied, but they are hounded continually by agitators and politicians and discontent is preached to them continually. Trusting you will do everything in your power to prevent this kind of legislation, we beg to remain, DEAR SIR: We understand there is a bill known as an eight-hour bill in the hands of the Committee on Labor.. Should this bill be enacted it would mean that every manufacturing plant in the country would finally be working on eight hours per day. It strikes us that the effect of this can only be detrimental to the country at large, and even detrimental to those people who are known as the laboring class. We believe that one of the conditions in this country that is working against our institutions in every way is the one that puts the man down to a limit of his capacity so that he has no ambition except to receive his daily wage. There is a lack, at the present time, of ambitious Americans, primarily caused by the action of labor unions among our citizens. In your consideration of this matter we trust that you will bear the above in mind, and give it such consideration as in your judgment you may deem advisable. Very truly, yours, THE GEORGE JONAS GLASS COMPANY. [Jamestown Cotton Mill.] JAMESTOWN, N. Y., February 28, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I write to protest against the bill, H. R. 15615, introduced by you into Congress. I respectfully submit the following reasons why I consider this bill a bad one, that never ought to be put upon the statute books: First, there are certain inalienable rights that belong to every man in this country. For some reason or other our lawmakers seem to lose sight of these rights, and attempt all sorts of things by legislation that never ought to be done. What right has Congress to tell any able-bodied man of full age how many hours he shall work, or how many meals a day he shall eat, or what time he shall go to bed at night, or get up in the morning? It seems to me that legislation on this question takes away a man's freedom and makes him a slave. Suppose Congress should legislate that a man shall work twelve hours a day, what then? If Congress has a right to say a man shall work eight hours, it certainly has the right to say he shall work twelve hours. How much better it is to let the individual and his employer decide this themselves. The man may want to work ten hours, because he is young and strong and ambitious and has a need for the money. Now, what right has Congress to say to him, We know better than you do what is good for you, and you can not work over eight hours. I respectfully maintain that Congress has no right to tell a man, or a woman either, what shall be the extent of their working hours. If you have a right to do this, why not tell him he must attend the Roman Catholic Church on Sunday or compel him to go to the Methodist Church? Of course we all know where all this attempted legislation comes from-the trades unions. They want to get pay for time they do not work, and are all the time asking for special privileges to break the laws that all good citizens should keep; the anti-injunction act, for instance. It would seem to me that our legislators should not allow themselves to be made the tools of the unionists in these matters, but should have some sound principles to go on, and refuse to be party to anything that takes away the liberty of the subject, as this eight-hour bill will do. The hours of labor are being shortened all the time, and no one objects to this when the change comes about naturally as the country can afford it. But many people do not seem to know that if production is reduced and goods made dearer by shorter hours, that we must all of us be content with less of this world's goods. The mission of civilization should be to make products cheap, so that the poor man's dollar will buy him more and more of the comforts of life. This is being done all the time by the improvements in machinery and by labor-saving devices and inventions. But the effort of the trades unions is all the time to make things dear by raising wages and diminishing production. Then they complain that it costs more to live than it used to. They say practically, "Let us increase our wages and let the rest of the world do as it likes." Selfishness like this always defeats its own ends. I hope you will reconsider this matter and abandon the bill. DEAR SIR: We are decidedly opposed to the passage of House bill 15651, limiting the hours of daily services of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, etc., because we believe that its passage will have a tendency to unsettle the entire labor problem of the country, as nearly all of the factories in the United States are running upon a nine or ten hour basis, and should the bill in question become a law it will require many of them to run two shifts of men-one on eight hours and the other the regular time basis. As a result a large majority of the factories can not practically compete for Government contracts, thereby costing the Government more than others pay for similar work. We think it is not an opportune time to conisder the cutting down of hours of labor, but rather how can they be kept employed. Thanking you in advance for your courtesy in this matter, and hoping that you can consistently oppose this bill, we are, DEAR SIR: I have a request to make of you, and I believe that I can make the same claim on you which was made by a man who did not think much of religion, but who got into a tight place and, not seeing his way out of it, thought of praying. He introduced his prayer by telling the Lord "You know that I do not bother you as much as other people, in fact this is the first time that I have asked you to help me, and so I expect you to do your very best for me.” My request concerns the eight-hour bill (H. R. 15651) introduced by Repre |