competent machinists we are compelled occasionally to work evenings; otherwise we could not give to an important job the good attention that the circumstances of the particular case may warrant or may demand. Any law in the direction of preventing a man working more than eight hours or any given number of hours for the Government is but the entering wedge, the initial step toward obtaining precisely the same universal legislation. Such a step would be an interference, a discouragement to the ambitious workingman; would be a blow to American freedom. Most earnestly we protest against the passage of any bills that may at all resemble the bill H. R. 11651. Very respectfully, WM. E. FULTON. BRIDGEPORT, CONN., May 8, 1906. SIR: We have the honor to address you in connection with H. R. 11651, and enter protest against enactment of this or other measures of a similar nature. We do considerable work for the United States Government and it would be impossible to run our plant on a basis of eight hours' work for the Government and ten hours for our commercial work. We trust, therefore, that the manufacturers' view of this bill will be given careful consideration. Respectfully, DEAR SIR: We understand that hearings have just commenced on bill H. R. 11651 before your committee, and we wish to protest against the passage of this measure, as it would legally boycott us so far as the Government is concerned, as we do not run our plant upon the eight-hour basis. The disastrous effect of the passage of this measure to the interests of the Government is also, we believe, very apparent to you. We further object to the passage of this bill as constituting an 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. We have in the past done considerable manufacturing for the Government, such as building lathes for turning, boring, and rifling 10-inch, 12-inch, and 16-inch guns, and the manufacture of disappearing carriages for the mounting of said guns for coast defense. Were this bill passed it would be impossible and impractical for us to do Government work. We are at present running our plant fifty-five and one-half hours per week, making ten hours on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and five and one-half hours on Saturday. By this schedule the men get the half holiday. This is our practice the year through. You can very readily see that if we had Government work in process it would be impractical to employ our men on Government work eight hours out of the ten, and on other work the remaining two hours. Hoping we have made ourselves clear, we are, Yours, very truly, J. T. W. MURRAY, General Manager. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, HACKENSACK, N. J., May 9, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We emphatically protest against the enactment of the parcel-post (consolidation) bill, as it will work to the serious, if not fatal, injury of the retail hardware trade throughout the country. It is not necessary to enter into the whys and wherefores, as they have been fully covered by other remonstrances sent your honorable body. Yours, respectfully, ROMAINE HARDWARE Co., Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, WATERBURY, CONN., May 9, 1906. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We beg to call your attention to bill H. R. 11651. The passing of this bill would prevent this concern from competing for Government work. We believe a bill of this character is calculated to embarrass the Government in its purchases by limiting competition. Yours, very truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman, Washington, D. C. CHASE ROLLING MILL Co. WILKES-BARRE, PA., May 9. 1906. MY DEAR SIR: I wish to protest against reporting favorably bill H. R. 11651. I have had nearly fifty years' experience in business; I have tried the experiment of running our factory eight hours, nine hours, and ten hours. I have never yet been able to make any money running our business on the eight-hour basis. I believe it would be a great mistake and would be purely class legislation for the Government to make a law prohibiting men from working more than eight hours a day on anything that is being manufactured for the Government. It is useless for me to make a long argument on this subject. It is enough for a man with the experience in business that I have had to say to you that he thinks it would be a mistake to pass such a bill. This simple statement would no doubt have as much influence with you in regard to the bill as a long argument. I wish to ask you to use your influence against reporting this bill favorably. Very sincerely, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, J. E. PATTERSON. THE NORWICH BELT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We beg to call your attention to H. R. bill 11651, which has been referred to your committee. The effect of this bill would be damaging to manufacturers of goods in our line who contract with the Government and furnish supplies. It is also too sweeping in its character and, in our opinion, wholly uncalled for, and we believe that the interests of employees would not be promoted by such legislation. Yours, very truly, THE NORWICH BELT MFG. CO. H. H. GALLUP, Treasurer, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. NIAGARA FALLS, N. Y., May 10, 1906. DEAR SIR: The McComas eight-hour bill now before your committee is one of those revolutionary measures pressed by coercive unionism which is fraught with danger to the manufacturers of our State, and we desire to enter a protest against its passage. Any attempt to arbitrarily restrict contractors and manufacturers to shorter hours on State work than is required for similar work under corporate or individual control is a direct tax upon the citizens for the benefit of a small minority combined in a trust. Such class legislation is iniquitous and revolutionary. We trust your committee will not report this bill. Yours, very respectfully, A. H. G. HARDWICKE, Secretary. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, RIVERSIDE, N. J., May 10, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that bill H. R. 11651 is now before the House Committee on Labor, and we desire to take this opportunity of expressing our opinion that should this bill become a law it would work serious injury both to the Government and to many manufacturers in this country--to the Government in that it would absolutely prevent its purchasing certain lines of goods which are made exclusively by manufacturers who would decline to accept contracts which would necessitate the running of their plants, or a certain number of their employees, on a different time than that under which the plant regularly operates; and that in many instances it would deprive the Government from purchasing its materials and supplies at as low a price as it could do if every manufacturing concern in the different lines of business were free to bid in competition. The injury to the manufacturers would be that there are many concerns that are doing a certain amount of work for the Government that would be forced to discontinue this, for the reason that it would not be practical to operate their works on a basis of two different times as representing a day's labor, and if they were to attempt to operate their entire plant on the eight-hour basis it would put them entirely out of competition on that portion of their business which is done outside of Government contracts. Speaking for ourselves, we have always done more or less work for the Government, and just at this time we have in contemplation certain plans which if put in operation would place us in position to do a very large amount of Government work, and which would mean the erection of large additions to our plant and the employment of large numbers of additional workmen, which would enable us to supply the Government with certain classes of goods of a quality and at prices which they have never had before; and yet, if this bill were to become a law we should be compelled at once to change our plans, as we should not be justified in catering for Government work upon the eighthour basis, as the interference with our regular business would be too great to make it practical. We therefore take this opportunity of entering our earnest protest against the passage of bill H. R. 11651, believing that it will work injury to the Government, injury to the American manufacturers, injury to the American workman. Yours, very truly, THE RIVERSIDE METAL COMPANY, BOSTON, MASS., May 10, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: I write you at the direction of the executive committee of the Employers' Association of Boston, which is one of 437 other organizations of a like character scattered over the United States and centralized in the National Citizens' Industrial Association of America, whose headquarters are at 1135 Broadway, New York City, to say that it is the unanimous opinion of the executive committee of this association that the legislation now proposed before your committee, and known as the "McComas eight-hour bill," which Gompers et al. are pressing before your committee, should by all means not receive the support of your committee in the shape of a recommendation that it do pass. They recognize that this is a part of a plan of unionized labor to force the eight-hour day by legislation upon the American employing public. They know by past experience that this would work a great wrong upon this nation, and particularly so when the condition of public unrest, which is now very apparent, is considered. The individual members of this association and all others who are at all interested realize the fact that such legislation as this will bring about all sorts of lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts and will accentuate the fact that is palpable to every thinking person, that organized labor under its present leadership is but a menace to the foundation of this Republic, and they desire you to know that as individuals and as associations they will not stand for any further coercion or attempted coercion by legislative means, if in their power to prevent it. The voters of this country are fast realizing the fact that two millions of organized labor have long enough controlled in the legislative halls of Congress and in the State legislatures upon questions of this character, and if the servants of the people are bound to be guided by the domination of this organization, then the larger and greater organizations are prepared by their ballots to show that they are bound to be heard when the time comes upon this question in their different Congressional districts. We in Boston are thoroughly alive and fully awake and are awaiting the action of your committee, and we expect that your action will be for the best interests of the greater number. Yours, very respectfully, ALBION P. PEASE, Secretary. TOLEDO, OHIO, May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We have just learned that you are a member of the House Labor Committee and that the McComas eight-hour bill is being pressed to a favorable report. This company wishes to be placed on record against any such a bill, as it would be ruinous to the larger part, if not all, of the smaller manufacturing institutions in the United States. We do not believe that any manufacturing institution employing less than 100 men could subsist on the profits they are able to make out of their men during eight hours' work on the part of the men. Take the ordinary manufacturing institution. They are required to have a manager, secretary, bookkeeper, two to three stenographers, shipping clerk, foreman, draftsman, timekeeper, and considerable nonproductive labor. The wages paid to these people, together with all expense of advertising, traveling, and all incidentals, must be charged up against the product of any manufacturing institution, and the more goods we are able to turn out the smaller the percentage of expense to be charged against its cost. In other words, the standard overhead expense in the factories the size above mentioned is about 60 per cent on nine to ten hours' workday. If you cut this workday down from nine hours to eight hours you are increasing the overhead expense 15 per cent, which means that a manufacturer will make 15 per cent less profit. If you will make proper investigation you will find there are very few manufacturing institutions over the country that makes 15 per cent on everything they send out. Fact is, we would nearly all be highly pleased to make 10 per cent, and if this eight-hour labor day goes into effect it will close down more manufacturing institutions than anything our Representatives or Senators have ever done for us. We therefore request that you use your earnest endeavor to see that no report is made on this eight-hour bill. Labor already has the manufacturing institutions of this country in such a shape that it is a question whether or not they are serving their own best interests by remaining in business. If some of your Representatives could deal directly with labor for about a year you would take a different view of their supposed wrongs. We should appreciate your reply to this letter and be glad to know that you intend using your influence against an eight-hour bill. Yours, very truly, THE ADVANCE MACHINERY COMPANY, J. A. TAGGART, President. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. NEWARK, N. J., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: I am very sorry to see that the old McComas eight-hour bill is being again pressed by the labor unions, and for our own firm, Carter, Howe & Co., and the Manufacturing Jewelers' Association of the city of Newark I wish to enter a most vigorous protest against reporting such a bill. I personally appeared before your committee a year or two ago against these or similar measures. While the manufacturing jewelers take no Government contracts, their success depends upon general business prosperity, and the least attempt to unsettle business conditions is always disastrous. To deprive an American citizen of the right to work when and as long as he pleases, in fact to make him a criminal if he fails to obey the behest of a self-constituted power, seems so absolutely unjust as to demand no refutation. However, as a paid lobby (against which the States of New York and New Jersey are in protest), in this case the so-called “labor representatives," who do no work, are so persistent in this agitation, we are compelled to again enter a vigorous protest. This legislation greatly affects our entire country and interferes with our prosperity. We therefore ask that you use your influence to save us from any form of class legislation. All we ask is justice and a square deal. Very respectfully, GEO. R. Howe, President. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. NEW BRITAIN, CONN., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: We have before us a copy of H. R. 11651, limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States or any Territory or the District of Columbia. This bill is designed to legally boycott all manufacturers operating their plants longer than eight hours per day who desire to enter into competition for Government contracts. This is, indeed, the avowed object of the advocates of this bill. In our field of industry-builders' hardware there is not a single firm of any prominence or responsibility that is not running its plant at least nine or ten hours per day. Many are running overtime. They can not afford to do otherwise. The same conditions are general throughout the industrial world. Government work is not of sufficient importance to any hardware manufacturer to warrant the reduction of his hours of labor to eight for the sake of placing himself in a position to execute Government work according to the terms presented by this bill. Consequently, if the bill were passed, the Government would be obliged to purchase of small and irresponsible makers, competition would be eliminated, and the Government obliged to buy hardware of an inferior grade at any price its makers might choose to ask. So much for its effects upon Government interests. Regarding it from our side, we claim that it is an impudent invasion of our rights to run our plant what hours our men are willing to work and the right of our men to work ten hours or longer if they desire to labor so long. It makes the Government the agent of the unions in imposing union hours on all who participate in Government contracts, and makes it party to wholly unjustifiable discrimination. The bill is a mischievous interference with natural trade conditions and with the workingman's right of contract. We have no quarrel with the eight-hour principle, and believe that it will eventually become the general period of labor. It should come, however, in the working out of commercial evolution, as other reductions in working hours have come, and not as a result of harassing legislation. We protest against this bill as a measure framed to benefit one class in the community at the expense of another and as a meddlesome interference with individual rights; and we venture to express the hope that your influence may be opposed to this bill as well as to any other proposed legislation of a similar character. Yours, very truly, E H-06-12 RUSSELL & ERWIN MANUFACTURING CO.. |