Fourth. We are just endeavoring to get some foreign business and feel that any law shortening hours of labor will at the present time act as a great hindrance in our competition for the world's market. Yours, very truly, MINNEAPOLIS BEDDING COMPANY, [Monongahela Tube Company.] PITTSBURG, Pa., February 19, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that a bill has been introduced recently (H. R. 15651) providing for an eight-hour law. As manufacturers and employers of labor we wish to enter a protest against the passage of legislation of this nature, as it is our firm belief that such laws are not only inimical to employers of labor, but are equally so to the employee. Yours, respectfully, MONONGAHELA TUBE COMPANY, Treasurer and General Manager. TRENTON, N. J., March 9, 1908. Hon. J. J. GARDNER, DEAR SIR: I wish to enter my earnest protest against the eight-hour law now before your committee, for the reason that it would have the effect of closing our half-closed factories and utterly paralyze business of all kinds except the sheriff's and that of criminal lawyers. Yours, truly, WILLIAM MILLS, Carpenter and Builder. [McLoughlin Brothers, publishers.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, BROOKLYN, N. Y., February 25, 1908. Member House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We learn with the greatest regret that H. R. 15651, providing for an eight-hour law, much like the defeated bills of last session, is being rushed to passage without adequate consideration and with but a perfunctory hearing. We protest against the passage of this bill, or of any bill providing for a working day of eight hours. We have had opportunity for observing the effect of a working day of eight hours, both on men and on production, and can testify from such observation that its inauguration means ruin both for employee and employer. Moreover, have we not had enough of drastic, ill-considered, erratic laws already? Can any lawmakers expect employers to employ help and pay wages in these times, while at the instigation of theorists, socialists, labor leaders, etc., they proceed to abuse their high offices by passing such laws as this, and by such methods? DEAR SIR: We write you as chairman of the subcommittee on labor to say that we consider that it would be a great calamity to the industries of this country should the eight-hour bill now before your committee pass. First, the Government should never be hampered by any red-tape or classlegislation laws. In purchasing supplies of any kind it always leads to corrup tion. Again, we believe that the laborer should be allowed the privilege of mutually agreeing with the employer as to the hours of labor; we do not believe in the idea of allowing any union representing a class to dictate or manage the business of another class. In closing, may we request that this protest be made part of the printed record of the hearing of the bill. Sincerely, yours, MINNEAPOLIS BRICK AND TILE CO., [International Association of Master House Painters and Decorators of the United States and Canada.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives. MILWAUKEE, WIS., April 7, 1908. DEAR SIR: As a representative of the International Master House Painters and Decorators' Association of the United States and Canada, I desire to protest against the passage of the eight-hour bill. I deem it inexpedient, unwise, and pernicious, and against the best interests of the manufacturers and mechanics of this country. Such a law would be extremely detrimental to the progress and efficiency of many of the departments of the Government, cumbersome and expensive in its application, causing greater taxation upon its people, and creating and compelling employers to influence and encourage the importation of undesirable immigrants to supply the demands at times, and working out a hardship when a stringency exists. Again I wish to protest in the strongest possible manner against this class legislation, and I request this communication be made part of the printed.records of the case. SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith the objections to H. R. 15651 of the Employers' Association of Massachusetts, comprising some 5,000 manufacturers, and other employers of labor, citizens of this Commonwealth, all either active members or allied with it for purposes of mutual interests in their individual activities. The objections given ought to receive the consideration of the committee of which you are chairman, and I have no doubt it will. The executive committee of this association respectfully request that the objections be made a part of the record and printed in the report of your committee. I have the honor to be, ALBION B. PEASE, Secretary. Bill H. R. 15651.—A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. This bill embodies many novelties not heretofore to be found in the Congressional eight-hour legislation, and is far more drastic in its terms than acts of 1892, chapter 352, and the prior enactment of Revised Statutes, section 3738. 1. The most striking novelty consists in providing a penalty to be made a part of each contract, which is to be withheld by the officers of the Government when any violation of the eight-hour law, either by the contractor or subcontractor, is reported. The contractor who is aggrieved by this withholding must then himself institute proceedings before the departmental head, with a right of appeal to the Court of Claims, and all this is to be in addition to the criminal penalties pro vided by acts of 1892, chapter 352, section 2, which is not repealed by the proposed bill. Moreover, this penalty is to be visited upon the contractor irrespective of intentional wrongdoing on his part, and he is thus virtually made an insurer of the conduct of his subcontractors and laborers. The act of 1892 visits the criminal penalty only upon the individual who intentionally violates the statute, but his proposed measure penalizes the innocent contractor for the act of a subcontractor if the latter, unknown to his principal, even permits a zealous employee to work for more than eight hours. Perhaps the harshest feature of the bill lies in the fact that the executive officers of the Government are turned thereby into quasi-judicial functionaries, whose decision is prima facie binding and the burden of seeking relief from an incorrect determination of the questions involved by a departmental agent is placed upon the unfortunate contractor. Under the acts of 1892 it becomes the duty of the prosecuting officers to proceed against a contractor in the criminal courts by the ordinary forms of law, but, in addition to that, this bill makes it compulsory upon the person who has the duty of approving the payments of money under the contract to collect the nominated penalty by withholding the amount thereof. This is to be done ex parte, without any opportunity for the contractor to be heard, and the officer is absolutely without discretion in the matter. Upon the coming in of the report of a violation of the law he is required to collect the penalty by withholding the amount. After that an innocent contractor must set in motion a complicated and expensive procedure for collecting the sum so withheld. The bill is dealing with what is, by virtue of acts of 1892, chapter 35, a criminal offense. It is merely creating a new and additional penalty for an existing crime, and yet by its terms it reverses all known principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for it provides in effect that the contractor shall be presumed guilty until he has proved himself innocent and that the burden shall be upon the person accused to establish his rectitude. "Any officer or person designated as inspector shall, upon observation or investigation, forthwith report to the proper officer of the United States ** all violation of the provisions of this act and the amount of the penalties imposed according to the stipulation in such contract shall be directed to be withheld by the officer or person whose duty it shall be to approve the payment of the moneys due under such contract, whether the violation sc ** # is by the contractor or subcontractor."-II. R. 15651, p. 2, lines 5 to 22. In other words, first fine the contractor and afterwards find out if he is innocent. Truly a new exposition of the maxim "Shoot first and ask questions afterwards," or, rather, it may be described as a reversion of what was known in the fifteenth century as "Devon law," whereby in savage parts of England a criminal might be hanged without a hearing and an elaborate mockery of a ceremony instituted after the death to try out the facts in issue. A proposition that we place in the hands of executive departmental officials the power to enforce criminal or quasi criminal penalties of their own volition without the semblance of a hearing is a novelty in American jurisprudence. The penalties which may be imposed by acts of 1892, chapter 352, are severe. To subject contractors to further punishment of the drastic character proposed by this bill, and in addition to make them liable not only for their own intentional misconduct as heretofore, but as insurers for the actions of others, and to cause them to suffer vicariously, is to place too heavy a burden upon a single class of citizens in our community. 2. Another novelty in the proposed bill is to be seen in this: That prior legislation along these lines has limited the class amenable to similar penalties to those engaged upon “public works" of the United States, while the new measure contains no such limitation, but makes all persons having contracts of any sort with the Government whose performance involves the use of laborers or mechanics liable to these punitive enactments. (See United States r. Ollinger, 55 Fed. Rep., 959.) 3. The extension of the punitive provisions of this class of legislation to all contracts made to or on behalf of the Territories may well be a source of great hardship to many citizens. Conditions of employment and industry are so diverse in the various outlying Territories of our nation that it can scarcely be wise for Congress to lay down a hard and fast rule as to the hours of labor which may be made therein. [Mankato Sidewalk Company.] MANKATO, MINN., April 13, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As an employer of labor and contractor is a small way and as a soldier, citizen, and voter, allow me to enter my protest to yourself and to the committee of Congressmen having in charge the eight-hour bill. I am opposed to making eight hours the length of a day's work I am opposed to the Govern ment requiring of contractors doing Government work that they be required to limit their working day for their help to eight hours. Such a law will, in my opinion, cost the Government many dollars and do the laborer no good. I request that this, my humble protest, be made a part of the printed records of your hearings on this bill. Sincerely, yours, [William E. Minor, M. D.] E. D. WILMOT. KANSAS CITY, Mo., February 21, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. GARDNER: My attention has been called to a bill limiting the hours of daily labor in the United States, etc., with which bill you are quite familiar, and I am taking the liberty of writing you, earnestly hoping that this bill will not be favorably reported by your committee. I have thoroughly digested the contents of the same, and many of our good citizens have done likewise, and in writing you my sentiments I am expressing the sentiments of these gentlemen, believing that it is for the best interest of our Government that this bill be defeated. Hoping that our views will meet your favorable consideration, and thanking you for any consideration, I beg to remain, Very sincerely, yours, W. E. MINOR. [McIntosh, Seymour & Co., steam engines.] AUBURN, N. Y., February 19, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Labor Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We hope you will oppose the eight-hour bill which is now before Congress, as special legislation, it seems to us, is too plentiful now. It seems to us radically wrong that any law should be passed that cuts off any man from working as many hours as he sees fit. Any such bill as that if passed would shut us off from dealing with the Government. It seems to us radically wrong as a general principle in the United States that the capitalist and the small property holder, like the farmer and others, has the privilege of working as many hours as he wants to, but the laboring man, who needs to work the most hours, if there is any difference at all, is to be limited to only eight. DEAR SIR: We have just learned that there is before your committee a proposed bill providing in substance that Government work be done under an eight-hour labor rule. It is certainly our hope that you can appreciate the inadvisability of any such bill as this in connection with structural material for buildings, bridges, electric cranes, or anything of that sort that might be required in our line. We want to bid on this kind of work and believe that the Government wants us to. It would be practically impossible for us to do so if we were required to permit our men to work only eight hours per day on such work. It would be almost a physical impossibility to keep such work separate in our shop and would result in our having to decline to enter into competition for this kind of work. We call your attention to this and hope that you may see the unreasonable demands of the bill in question, and we respectfully solicit your effort in turning it down. Yours, truly, MODERN STEEL STRUCTURAL CO., By R. H. SIMPSON. [Morton Manufacturing Company.] MUSKEGON HEIGHTS, MICH., February 21, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. Gardner, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: My attention has been called to your eight-hour bill (H. R. 15651), a bill to restrict the number of hours which an employer may be permitted to work on a Government contract. I take pleasure in saying that the company with which I am associated has filled quite a number of contracts for special machinery to the United States Government, and we anticipate a number of additional orders in the near future. Our works are operated on a ten-hour basis—that is, with the exception of Saturdays, when one week we shut down at 4.30 and each alternating week we shut down at 12 o'clock noon. As I understand the contents of this bill, should we secure an order for machinery for the United States Government we could not employ any of our mechanics on this contract more than eight consecutive hours in each twenty-four; in other words, the mechanics who are working on this contract, after working eight hours, we would have to order them to go home or shift them onto other work in some way as best we could. We think with a little consideration that you will understand the amount of confusion and expense a bill of this kind would make, if once it becomes a law, in any institution that is fortunate in securing an occasional order for the United States Government for special machinery, and the loss and confusion to the workmen would offset any gain which they might attain thereby should the Government restrict the number of hours that a man may work in the manner indicated by this bill. I sincerely hope that you will give the points brought out your careful consideration. Yours, very truly, WM. ROWAN, Jr. [Monitor Drill Company.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 20, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: We understand that there is an eight-hour bill before Congress. While not as drastic as the last one, still a bill affecting the rights of American citizens to contract their time and at the same time limiting the rights of other American citizens of purchasing such time. While we are not certain that it would be unconstitutional, we believe it to be un-American and starting a very, very bad line of legislation, and we sincerely trust that there will be no legislation of any kind along this line. Very truly, yours, MONITOR DRILL COMPANY, By E. R. BEEMAN, Vice-President. [The Monaren Brass Company.] CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 22. 15 Mr. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We beg leave to protest against the passage of the eight-h which is now under consideration by your committee, for the reason passage of this bill would surely cause a great hardship to mar are furnishing material to the Government, and will certain' |