WINSTED, CONN., May 11, 1906. Hon. J. J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We desire to offer our suggestions in regard to the eight-hour labor bill, which we understand is now being pressed upon the Labor Committee for consideration. As a manufacturer of fifty years' experience, I think I can speak from something besides a theoretical standpoint. We believe that no legislation is necessary on this matter. Every person, corporation, or municipality should have the right to make such terms with their employees as to hours and wages as the parties concerned can agree upon. The Federal Government has no more right to settle the number of hours a man may work each day than it has to try to settle the question of how much money an employer shall pay for service of any kind. This will be, if enacted, class legislation of the rankest kind in our opinion, and should not be allowed to be reported for action by the House at all. The Government has the right to say how many hours labor shall be performed each day by its employees, and regulate the wage. The laborer has the right to elect if he will accept the job or not. Is this a free country? If so, then every man, woman, corporation, or otherwise has a perfect right to say. whether they wish to run their business on an eight, nine, or ten hour basis, and when such a condition ceases to exist then we are not a free people. The question should be left to the parties concerned to settle such points, we think. The question of establishing by law how many hours a man may run his factory, if enacted, will be followed soon by another law of how many dollars per day he shall pay laborers, all of which we believe to be unconstitutional, unbusinesslike, and not calculated to promote the best interest of either employer or employees, nor the country at large. When I first commenced to manufacture, custom had established eleven hours as a day's work. Later the views of business men generally seemed to be that ten hours would be a better basis to do business on, and a change came about in a natural way. No law was made concerning it that I ever heard of. Later still a nine-hour day has come to be quite common in many of the large towns and factories, but not general by any means, but if experience and common sense finally show that a nine-hour basis is the best for everybody concerned, all will gradually accept it without the enacting of laws to force it along, and the same results will be obtained as to the eight-hour basis if shown by experience that it is for the good of all concerned. The idea that Government can say to one class of employers, "You shall not run your business but eight hours per day," while other lines of industry are undisturbed by such laws, is onesided and unfair. The idea that contractors taking jobs from the Government must be hampered by any law recognizing an eight-hour day is a very unwise and malicious thing, and should not be tolerated at all. It does not require any argument to show why. either. The employing part of the public have rights that must be guarded as well as the employed part, and, as with all such questions, it should be left to time to thrash it out on a basis that will stand, without revolutionizing the whole country. We wish most earnestly to impress upon your committee that the employing public, so far as our observation goes, does not desire any such law enacted, and hope it will not be reported at all. With best wishes for your future, we are, Yours, truly, WM. L. GILBERT CLOCK Co., J. G. WOODRUFF, President and Treasurer. TROY, N. Y., May 11, 1966. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We sincerely trust you will use all the influence you can bring to bear against a favorable report on any eight-hour bill now pending before Congress. We believe the people are heartily tired of the unreasonable attitude of unionism and will not stand for coercion through Congressional action. Any sight-hour bill is a menace and uncalled for, except by unionist agitators. The great mass of workers are satisfied with present conditions. Shorter hours' would mean increased cost of production, hence a corresponding advance in the necessaries of life. We trust you will give this important matter your earnest attention, as we are thoroughly satisfied that adverse action will be for the best interests of the country at large. Very truly, yours, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. FELLOWS & Co. BOSTON, May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: There is a bill before Congress-the McComas eight-hour billwhich puts our business of manufacturing brushes in jeopardy. We have a considerable and growing trade in exporting brushes manufactured by us to Australia, South America, Mexico, and England, all of which are sold in competition with English and German brush manufacturers. Our factory is run on the nine-hour basis, and it is a difficult problem now to hold our own in getting and retaining foreign trade. A cutting down or hampering us to make a shorter workday distinctly means that we will have no export trade, and we need it. This is only one of the objections to the bill named, but it alone, as relating to brushes and other goods seeking foreign markets, is so important that the principle should not prevail. We trust you will use your endeavors to prevent the bill, or any eight-hour bill, becoming a law. 66 DEAR SIR: We understand that the labor lobbyists are still continuing their efforts to get a favorable report from your committee on the McComas eight-. hour bill," and believing that this bill is revolutionary in its character, not for the best interests of the country or the so-called labor element, and that the manufacturers of the country are sick and tired of the constant attempts of the labor agitators to carry out their plan of coercive unionism to force the eight-hour day into all the factories of the country, it is very patent to anyone at all familiar with the matter that the present effort to adopt this eight-hour. law in all Government Departments and in all places where work for the Government is performed is but an entering wedge to include every manufacturing interest in the country. We believe it entirely wrong to discriminate in the manner provided for in this bill against manufacturers who are not Government contractors, and that the time has arrived when the Congress should see to it that they do not assist the labor agitators in their lawlessness, boycotts, intimidations, and strikes by the passage of this bill, which, as stated above, is simply an entering wedge to enforce it in all manufactories of the country. We believe that the great majority of the people who employ labor are with us in the suggestion that you do not allow this bill to be reported favorably out of your committee, and we hope and trust that you will sit down on it, and sit down on it hard. Yours, very truly, THE ENGELBERG HULLER Co. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. NEW YORK, May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: We understand that the labor lobbyists are pushing the eight-hour bill again, and we ask you to kindly lend your best efforts to defeat any such It is hard enough for us, as manufacturers, to compete with cheap foreign labor, and we ought not to be called upon to reduce working hours. A measure. bill making eight hours compulsory would bring great hardship, not alone to the manufacturers, but to the workingmen, as manufacturers would gradually have to close their factories owing to their inability to compete with foreign labor. We believe that ten hours is a fair working day, and if workmen are paid well for the hours they work no one should object to the length of the present working day. Very truly, yours, LEHMAIER, SCHWARTZ & Co. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, NEWARK, N. J., May 11, 1906. House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that there is a bill before your committee in the House known as the McComas eight-hour bill, and we beg most respectfully to enter our protest against the passage of any such measure, which is inimical to the manufacturing interests of this country. It would simply mean increased cost of production if any attempt is made to put such laws in general practice. With the prevailing excessively high cost of all raw materials the manufacturer is at his wits end to produce his goods at anywhere near a marketable cost, and the limit must be reached some time, both as regards the high cost of raw materials and excessive demand of labor agitators. We hope that your committee will not recommend the passage of this measure. Yours respectfully, STENGEL & ROTHSCHILD. PHILADELPHIA, May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We address you concerning the eight-hour bill now before the House Labor Committee, of which you are a member, and beg to request your adverse vote on same. In the present state of the country and of the restrictions and coercions of labor unions a national eight-hour bill would be, in our opinion, a great misfortune. We employ 400 people, all of whom, we believe, are content and prosperous, running our factory fifty-five hours per week. We beg to assure you that the sentiment of the employers of labor in this country is strongly against any national eight-hour bill. Yours, truly, PIONEER SUSPENDER COMPANY. PHILADELPHIA, PA., May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I understand that the McComas eight-hour bill, or a bill in effect the same as the McComas bill, is now before your committee for consideration. I suppose that there can be no doubt that the advocacy of this bill comes chiefly from the labor unions or from those working in their interests. I venture to ask your attention for a moment, because I have been for thirty years at the head of industrial establishments, where I have been directly responsible for the relations between the corporations I represented and their labor. I may say, further, that there has never been a general strike, or a prolonged or bitter strike of any department in any establishment that I have managed, which I take to be evidence that the men under my management have been generally satisfied and pleased with the conditions of their employment. I can not but feel, however, that the harmonious relations, the mutual confidence that has always existed between me and the men under me, is in constant jeopardy on account of the general and growing influence of the trades unions, and I think that the same danger hangs over thousands of industrial establishments where pleasant relations and mutual confidence between heads and subordinates has existed for years. The point I wish to make after this introduction is that the trades unions are acquiring in this country a power no longer used for defense, but for mischief; that the objects of this influence are in many cases as truly selfish and oppressive as those of the great trusts of the worst sort; that their methods are often subversive to liberty and out of harmony with the spirit of our institutions. Labor unions are rapidly getting to be no longer a proper combination to resist injustice, but a great power acting without corporate responsibility, often with ruin to certain industries, and always with a purpose to unreasonably tax the community, whose laws they defy for the benefit of a limited class. There are many practical objections of great weight to an eight-hour bill, but with these you are undoubtedly quite familiar. The real question in my mind is whether our National Congress shall foster special interests already grown so powerful as to seriously menace individual liberty and the integrity of our laws. THE AMERICAN PULLEY COMPANY, CHARLES A. BRINLEY, Very truly, yours, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. Managing Director. NEWBURGH, N. Y., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: We understand that the House Labor Committee, of which you are chairman, have a bill before them in favor of a general eight-hour law. In my opinion, this would be a great damage to the textile industry of this country, and I hope you will not report it to the House for passage. The textile industry is too much handicapped by labor unions already, without placing this additional burden upon it. Yours, truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. HARRISON & GORE SILK COMPANY, WORCESTER, MASS., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: As a member of the House Labor Committee, we take the liberty of offering you our most sincere protest to favorable consideration on the part of your committee to the so-called McComas eight-hour labor bill, which we understand is coming up next week. The labor conditions of the manufacturers, especially in New England, are becoming very serious. You probably appreciate we have no natural advantages and are dependent entirely upon the productive ability of our workingmen to compete with the rest of the country more fortunately situated. Favorable consideration of this bill will tend to force the same short hours in our private work as will be required for Government work-that is, we do more or less Government work upon which, we understand, we could only allow our men to work eight hours. It will be very hard to separate this work from our regular run. We do not believe the demand is called for, except by professional labor agitators, who have everything to gain and nothing to lose. We know our men are satisfied with present conditions, and we believe this is the case with the great bulk of the laboring men all over the country. Thanking you for your attention, and again urging our protest, we beg to remain, Yours, truly, SPENCER WIRE CO. NEWARK, N. J., May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR Referring to the McComas eight-hour bill, which we believe we wrote you about previously, we understand this is coming up again for consideration, and we trust you will use your every effort in not allowing this bill to be recorded. It is vicious in its conditions and revolutionary in its principles, and will certainly work harm among the manufacturers of machinery or supplies who are furnishing same to the Government. Yours, very truly, GOULD & EBERHARDT. 1 Hon. JNO. J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. PITTSBURG, PA., May 11, 1906. 66 DEAR SIR: The Builders' Exchange League of Pittsburg, with a membership of 1,000 representative contractors and manufacturers, desire, through the House Labor Committee, to protest against the McComas eight-hour bill" now being urged in an arbitrary manner by certain bodies, unauthorized by the State, who believe only in a rule-or-ruin policy. It is a further demand for mastery under the guise of shorter hours, and if carried to its ultimate conclusions would bring disaster and ruin to all industries and equal disaster to its advocates, thus endangering the entire industrial community. The public is sick and tired of restrictions and coercions of unionism, as exhibited in their strikes, lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts, and our association faithfully hopes your committee will not present a favorable report, or, in fact, permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. Very respectfully, BUILDERS' EXCHANGE LEAGUE. NEW YORK, May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: My attention has been called to the McComas eight-hour bill, which is now, I believe, before your committee. It seems, from my point of view, to be unnecessary to protest against the passing of this bill. I believe it most revolutionary, and in every way undesirable; and as a practical business man I should like to be numbered among those who are unqualifiedly against the acceptance of any such measure by our lawmakers at Washington. Respectfully, yours, Hon. JNO. J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. F. N. DOUBLEDAY. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, SYRACUSE, N. Y., May 11, 1906. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand there is a movement being made to have the McComas eight-hour bill reported and acted upon. Without going into any extended argument, we are opposed to this kind of legislation. The supply and demand has, and we believe will, regulated the price of labor and the hours. The small proportion of unionized labor are asking entirely too much and are too aggressive and tyrannical, and should not receive the consideration they do until their methods are materially changed. They are but a small proportion of the population of this great country, and we hope your committee will prevent any consideration of this bill at this time. Yours, truly, THE PARAGON PLASTER CO., Hon. J. J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. TROY, N. Y., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: Trusting you will not deem us presumptuous, we most respectfully request and urge you not to press to a favorable report the McComas eighthour bill or any other eight-hour bill. It is our firm conviction that it would be a great wrong, especially in the present condition of public unrest, to force any such measure upon the national community. Yours, very truly, COVERT MFG. CO. |