Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. PHILADELPHIA, May 7, 1906. DEAR SIR: AS manufacturers and citizens we must respectfully protest against the favorable reporting of H. R. No. 11651. The passage of this bill would rule out all manufacturers in competitive work, except those whose establishments were conducted on a strictly eight-hour basis, and there is no justification for the passage of such an act. Yours, truly, SCHOFIELD, MASON & Co. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER. DANBURY, CONN., May 7, 1906. DEAR SIR: Bill H. R. 11651, now before your honorable body, constitutes a measure of unwarranted interference with the right of individual liberty and a dangerous invasion of the natural laws of trade, which are shortening the hours of labor as speedily as commercial conditions permit and humane treatment of labor demand. Socialistic and radical legislation, enforcing arbitrary periods of employment, is highly objectionable and decidedly detrimental to our general welfare, and we therefore hope that this bill will not receive your favorable action, but that you will use your able influence to kill this measure. Very respectfully, yours, SIMON & KEANE. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, LOUISVILLE, KY., May 7, 1906. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In the name of the Employers' Association and also the Building Contractors' Exchange of this city I beg most earnestly to ask that this organization be given a chance to be heard in opposition to any eight-hour bill that Congress may be called on to consider, provided your committee intends to have any hearings on any bill of this nature. The first-named organization in the above paragraph is composed principally of large and small manufacturers and business men, and the second of contractors in the building trades. We are deeply interested in the proposed legislation, and feel that we are not seeking more than our due when we ask that a hearing be accorded us. We would also like to claim your indulgence to the extent of being given at least an hour or two, in order that we may present our case thoroughly and properly. Thanking you for anything that you may do for us in this matter, and assuring you of our very deep interest, we beg to remain, Very truly, yours, E. A. QUARLES. DAYTON, OHIO, May 7, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. SIR: In the event of your committee giving consideration to the eight-hour bill with a view of taking action upon it at the present session, the Employers' Association of Dayton, Ohio, respectfully requests that it be heard in opposition to said bill. It earnestly urges that a time be designated for the appearance of its representatives before your committee and that several hours be assigned to them. If the Committee on Labor, the Congress, and the Government would make a summary disposition of those who seek to disturb conditions which are satisfactory to 95 per cent of all the people, even if it be to meet this question as it was recently met in Paris, it were well. The present policy is simply sowing seed of anarchy and revolution. This opinion is expressed with becoming respect to the committee and its chairman. I have the honor to be, Your obedient servant, A. C. MARSHALL, Secretary. Hon JOHN J. GARDNER, HAVERHILL, MASS., May 7, 1906. House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. GARDNER: So far as the favorable report or passage of H. R. 11651, a bill limiting the hours of daily service and fixing penalties therefor, is concerned, the same would be an outrage against American liberty. It should be the right of every man in this country to work as many hours as he pleases and as many as he can get paid for, in order to better his condition. Very sincerely, yours, CHAS. K. Fox. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, ROCHESTER, N. Y., May 7, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We have before us H. R. bill 11651. It hardly seems to us neces-sary to write a representative of either branch of Congress about such a bill as this is. It is class legislation of the worst kind, and how anyone could look at it differently we can not see. It is a bill for the purpose of advising everybody who wants to do business with the Government to do it in only one way, and you can readily see that there is no general competition open, and in most instances it is utterly impossible to compete at all. We hope you will use your influence against this bill and do what you can in committee to kill it in some way. Yours, truly, E. P. REED & Co. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, SAGINAW, MICH., May 7, 1906. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to bill H. R. 11651, now before the House of Representatives, limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States or any Territory or District of Columbia, and we wish to register our protest against this bill as an unwarranted interference with the right of individual liberty and a dangerousinvasion of the natural laws of trade. We are quite desirous that this bill should not be acted favorably upon in the House of Representatives, believing that the indirect effect of the labor situation will be most disastrous if the House of Representatives should pass the bill. Yours, truly, MERSHON, SCHUETTE, PARKER & Co., By F. E. PARKER, Secretary. ROME, N. Y., May 7, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We beg to call your attention to bill H. R. 11651, and would state that we have in the past been in the habit of bidding on supplies wanted by the Government. It would be impossible for us to bid on such matters if the bill should become a law; the result would be that the material would cost the Government more than it now costs them, and we really believe if the bill passes that it would be impossible for the Government to purchase supplies from any mill in this business. We therefore respectfully protest against its passage and trust you will agree with us. Yours, truly, ROME BRASS AND COPPER CO., By J. S. HASELTON. NEW YORK, May 7, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Committee on Labor. DEAR SIR: We desire to report to you our opposition to House bill 11651, limiting the hours of service of employees. We do not object to arranging with employees that they should not work more than eight hours a day. What we do object to is a forced arrangement of that kind, for we think such a forced arrangement is an interference with personal liberty and a wedge whereby the paternal governmental methods which have prevailed so disastrously both to employees and employers in Europe will become gradually permanently introduced in this country. GEO. CARLTON COMSTOCK. Yours, very truly, NEW YORK, May 8, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: I write to express my very serious opposition to the bill introduced by yourself, H. R. 11651, limiting the hours of daily service of laborers. The bill would add very greatly to the expense of Government work, which is already far in excess of private work, and would be a serious restriction upon parties who are wishing to compete for the same. In view of the constant and alarming increase of governmental expense in every direction, it seems that such propositions are most objectionable. Yours, respectfully, DAVID WILI.COX. BRIDGEPORT, CONN., May 8, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to protest against the passage of the eight-hour bill, H. R. No. 11651. We will not burden you with the details of our views against this bill at the present time, but we believe it to be inimical to the best interests of all manufacturers. Very truly, yours, S. T. DAVIS, JR., President. CHICAGO, May 8, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, of New Jersey. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are owners of the Pedrick & Ayer plant, at Plainfield, N. J., therefore, as manufacturers in your State, we appeal to you in connection with the labor bill, H. R. 11651. We believe that any such bill is unfair and unwarranted-unfair to manufacturers, and unwarranted because it is an interference with the individual rights. We desire to be placed on record accordingly. Yours, very truly, C. F. QUINCY, President. THOMPSONVILLE, CONN., May 8, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR Referring to bill H. R. 11651, we beg to place ourselves on record as unalterably opposed to its passage and to ask you to well consider it in this light and its effect on manufacturers, especially where Government work is ever done. We often build machinery for the Government use, and the passage of such a bill would completely bar us from accepting the Government work. Were the above bill to become a law the manufacturing industry of this country would receive a shock and setback that would be incalculable in its disastrous effects, and one of the probable effects would be to make the Goverument manufacture its own supplies in every detail, which, for example, in our case would entail a serious expense in the way of patterns and shops for making special machinWe have for a great many years furnished the Government special presses from time to time, that we have patterns for, and seem to be very satisfactory in its several departments. ery. This is only to illustrate the many lines of manufacture the Government has to purchase from who would be in the same position, namely, not able to estimate on their wants, for we certainly could not operate our factory and com pete with other countries on eight-hour basis. This, of course, is only an entering wedge of the labor leaders to get an eight-hour day all over this country, which we are certain the manufacturers of the country are in no condition to stand. The mechanic at work in the factory seems to be well satisfied with the conditions as they are, and is earning good wages, better than ever before, and if the manufacturing industry should receive a blow, that we believe the bill would give it, it certainly would be detrimental to the mechanic as well as the owner of the factory. We trust this bill will be killed in the committee room. We might go on very much at length on the above lines, but think this will give you an outline of the matter that possibly you are familiar with. If it would not be asking too much of your valuable time we would appreciate a reply, stating your views on the above. Yours, truly, G. H. BUSHNELL PRESS Co. WORCESTER, MASS., May 8, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to bill H. R. 11651, introduced January 12, 1906, and we write to say that we think this bill, if allowed to become a law, would be one of the most unjust acts that a Representative could lend his aid and support to. It would cut off the manufacturer's right to run more than eight hours on any work not for the Government that he may have in progress at the same time he has a Government contract. It is possible that we may never have a Government contract, but in the interest of fair play we do not believe that you or any other Representative should pass any such bill, and with respect, we remain, Yours, truly, HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON ARMS Co. PHILADELPHIA, May 8, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We desire to protest against affirmative action on H. R. bill 11651, entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics," etc., and to invite your refusal to report it for passage, on the following grounds: (1) That it constitutes an unwarranted interference with the right of personal liberty and puts a handicap on the industry and energy of the individual. It was not by legislative weighting down of the able and ambitious that American mechanical and manufacturing supremacy was attained, nor will that supremacy continue under such legislation. (2) That it is unnecessary. There is work in plenty for all who will take or do it and no reason for a forced distribution. (3) The bill reduces hours on Government work from the ten or nine which rule at present to eight, involving either a reduction of 20 or 11 per cent in wages paid, or a like addition to cost of all labor employed on Government contract work. It is not to be inferred that such reduction in wages is contemplated by the framers of the bill. The additional cost must therefore be paid by the Government. (4) It is further obvious that no manufacturer can run partly on an eight and partly on a nine or ten hour basis. Unless, therefore, he can secure on Government contracts an extra profit amounting to 11 or 20 per cent, as the case may be, on his entire pay roll, he will be unable to undertake them. The resulting embarrassment to the Government is not to be expressed in figures and should be ground for rejection of the bill were no other reasons presented. Respectfully, yours, THE LINK-BELT ENGINEERING COMPANY, S. HOWARD SMITH, Treasurer. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. BROOKLYN, N. Y., May 8, 1906. DEAR SIR: Referring to H. R. 11651, introduced into the House of Representatives January 12, 1906, which has been referred to your committee, we desire to call your attention to the fact that we think this bill is detrimental to the interests of manufacturers and workingmen alike, as it prevents anyone from working as many hours as one chooses. It would legally boycott, as far as the Government is concerned, all manufacturers who do not run their plants upon an eight-hour basis, and in our opinion constitutes an unwarranted interference with the right of individual liberty and is a dangerous invasion of the natural laws of trade, which are shortening the hours of labor as speedily as commercial conditions permit and humane treatment of labor demands. Yours, very truly, THE KNOX HAT MANUFACTURING COMPANY. HARTFORD, CONN., May 8, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to House bill H. R. 11651, now before your committee, permit us to enter our protest against a bill which is so eminently unfair both to manufacturers and the Government. There are no manufacturers in our line, for instance, working fewer hours than ourselves, viz, nine. We have been supplying the Government with work for the Isthmus, Philippines, etc.-work that the Government does not make and must have. The action of the bill would be to forbid our making the harness and force the Government to stop work, as they would be unable to obtain any in this country. Regretting the necessity which compels us to encroach on your time, we are, Yours, respectfully, THE SMITH-WORTHINGTON COMPANY. ANSONIA, CONN., May 8, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to H. R. 11651, limiting the hours of daily service upon work done for the United States. May we enter a protest against the passage of this bill? Our reason is as follows: We are manufacturers of insulated wire and electric bells. Our business, in line, we believe, with every other manufacturer in this country, is on the ten-hour basis, and to quote on any of the requirements of the Government we would simply have to charge for ten hours' labor for eight hours' production, as of course it would be impossible to use a machine for other work which was occupied eight hours per day with Government work. Of course, if the Government can stand it we can, but it doesn't seem like a business proposition. Yours, truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. THE ANSONIA ELECTRICAL CO. WATERBURY, CONN., May 8, 1906. DEAR SIR: It seems to us that any favorable consideration of bill H. R. 11651 would be deplorable, and we beg to briefly present our view point. The manufacturer, or "machine builder" in our individual case, would be powerless to undertake to supply special goods to the Government were any restraint (and penalty for violating) placed on the number of hours that an employee may work. We would prefer not to work more than nine or ten hours daily, but owing to the difficulty of getting the services of a sufficient number of |