Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, PITTSFIELD, MASS., May 11, 1906. House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Can we hope that you will use your influence against the McComas eight-hour bill? We would wish that you could see your way clear to oppose even a favorable report on this bill. It seems to us that this is favored only by the labor element, and the public in general are becoming sick and tired of the restrictions and coercions imposed upon them by the unions. We think that you will understand that the bill simply applying to the Government work is to be used as an opening wedge, and that they will work from that to have it compulsory throughout the country. We are under the impression that there was a hearing before your committee last year, at which time many facts and figures were presented which showed the injustice that would be worked upon the manufacturers in general. We hope that you understand that we feel very strongly in this matter and look to you as a member of this committee to safeguard our interests. Yours, truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. S. N. & C. RUSSELL MFG. CO. TROY, N. Y., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: We believe that it is to the interest of the country at large that all labor bills be pushed aside for this session of Congress. With the upward tendency of prices and the cutting down of the hours of the working day, it will react; and the laboring man that does work will have to pay for it. It is our observation in these matters that there is a professional agitation for a shorter day rather than agitation from the actual workers; that it is a man that draws a salary for representing a labor organization that talks it. Yours, truly, H. C. CURTIS & COMPANY, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. DAYTON, OHIO, May 11, 1906. We DEAR SIR: As one of the large manufacturers of this city and also of the country, we beg to lay before you our opposition to the eight-hour labor bill, which we understand comes before your committee for recommendation. desire to enter our protest against a favorable report on this bill, and we trust that you, as one of the committee, will not report same favorably. Yours, truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. BUCKEYE IRON & BRASS WORKS, MIDDLETOWN, N. Y., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: We understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is before your committee, and we write urging you to use your influence with the committee not to have this bill reported, or, if reported, that same will be unfavorable. We consider any eight-hour bill is revolutionary and dangerous and would be discriminatory in time upon all manufacturers not Government contractors. We consider it is part of the plan of coercive unionism to force the eight-hour day into all the factories of the country, and that it would be a great wrong, especially in the present condition of public unrest, to force such a thing upon the national community, and that the people are sick and tired of the restrictions and coercions of unionism as illustrated in their strikes, lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts, and will not stand for any further coercion or attempted coercion by legislative means. Aside from all this general objection, it would be ruin to people in the tanning industry, for reason that it is necessary to work at least ten hours in order that our raw material will not spoil in first stages of process. · We did not think it necessary to write to all the members of the committee, so write to you as chairman, and would appreciate it if you would bring this matter to attention of all. We thank you in advance for anything you can do for the general good. Yours, very truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, THE HOWELL-HINCHMAN Co. BALDWINSVILLE, N. Y., May 11, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is now before the Legislature. We desire to protest against favorable action upon it, either by your committee or on the floor of the House. We think it is a revolutionary and dangerous measure, and as manufacturers we protest against its passage. We trust, therefore, that you will use your influence to defeat the bill. Yours, very truly, MORRIS MACHINE WORKS, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Member of House Labor Committee, NORRISTOWN, PA., May 11, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that there is to be presented to your committee a bill known as the "McComas eight-hour bill," which is being pressed by the labor organizations. We feel sure that the representatives of the people will not allow such a measure as this to be reported favorably. It would so revolutionize the manufacturing interests of our country that the prosperity which they have been enjoying for the past several years, in which the employees have been participants, would be very seriously affected. While the bill in question would apparently affect only such concerns as are working for the Government, it would naturally be the entering wedge for a measure of this character to be presented, and we can not see how it is possible to discriminate between factories employed upon Government work and those that are not. The position which has been taken by the labor organizations during the past year or two has been such as to thoroughly disgust all fair-minded people, in consequence of their restrictions and coercions, as illustrated in their strikes, lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts. We beg, therefore, to protest most vigorously and very seriously against the favorable report of such a measure on the part of your committee, and trust that we may be favored with a reply from you as to your views on the subject. Yours, respectfully, RAMBO & REGAR (Incorporated), Per Jos. S. RAMBO, President. MEDINA, N. Y., May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR AS manufacturers we are very much interested in legislation on the labor question. Having been in the manufacturing business over thirty years, and the writer prior to that having been a laboring man, appreciate both the situation of the employer and the employed. Our experience teaches us that under the present conditions what has existed with labor unions for the last twenty years has been very detrimental both to the laboring class and to the manufacturers. We urgently request that your committee will not permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. In our vicinity the manufacturers and all the em ployers of labor are working ten hours, and were we compelled to adopt an eight-hour day it would be suicidal. Again we urgently request that you consider these matters fairly and protect, as far as possible, the best interests of our country. Yours, very truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. A. L. SWETT IRON WORKS, A. L. SWETT, President. NIAGARA FALLS, N. Y., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: We wish to protest against the attempt of the labor people to have laws passed which would be most injurious to the manufacturing interests of the country. We refer especially to what is known as the "McComas eighthour bill." We trust that the same may not become a law. We could give a thousand good reasons why this bill should not be passed. Yours, truly, FRANCIS HOOK AND EYE AND FASTENER CO. RIEGELSVILLE, N. J., May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Member of House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As New Jersey manufacturers we appeal to you to stand by our interests as well as that of every man in our employ, and do all you can to prevent any favorable report by your committee on the McComas (or any other) eight-hour bill. We shall look upon the passage of a national eight-hour labor bill as nothing short of a calamity to the country. We are satisfied 80 per cent at least of all intelligent workingmen in this country feel exactly as we do in this. Thanking you for the efforts we feel sure you will make in the real interest of the manufacturers and workmen of the State of New Jersey to prevent any favorable report of the bill referred to, we remain, Yours, very truly, TAYLOR, STILES & Co., Per C. W. GRIFFIN. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, New Jersey. ROCHESTER, N. Y., May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: As a member of the House Labor Committee, we earnestly request in the interest of the manufacturing industry and the camera-manufacturing industry in particular to report without your approval the McComas eight-hour bill. It would be a great wrong, especially in the present condition of public unrest, to force such a thing upon the nation. This bill would be revolutionary and dangerous not only to the manufacturers, but to the financial interests as well. Trusting that we may hear that you have signified your disapproval upon this measure, we remain, Very sincerely, yours, SENACA CAMERA MFG. Co., Per F. K. TOWNSEND. CHICAGO, May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We request you to use every influence in your power to prevent any consideration of either the McComas eight-hour bill or any other eight-hour bill that may come up for consideration before your committee at the present session. Labor unions are trying their best to run the manufacturing interests of this country, and any concessions that are made in the laws of the country to lower the number of hours for a day's work from what they are at the present time are very dangerous. Our object in writing you this letter is simply to impress upon you our feeling as to the importance that it is to the best interests of the people of this country that your committee gives absolutely no favorable consideration to this or any other eight-hour bills. We don't want them. With kind regards, we are, STEPHENS-ADAMSON MFG. CO. THE NATURAL FOOD COMPANY, Niagara Falls, N. Y., May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We hereby desire to enter our protest against the McComas eighthour bill, which is now before the House Labor Committee, of which we understand you are a member. In our opinion this bill is an entering wedge for a universal eight-hour day and should be opposed. Trusting that you may view the matter in the same light, Yours, very respectfully, A. J. PORTER, Second Vice-President. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. SWINDELL BROTHERS, Baltimore, May 11, 1906. DEAR SIR: As a member of the House Labor Committee, we write urging you in regard to the McComas eight-hour bill not to vote for a favorable report or to permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. As manufacturers, we consider such legislation would be discriminatory in time upon all manufacturers not Government contractors. We understand that it is a part of the plan of coercive unionism to force the eight-hour day into all the factories in the country. This, we consider, would be a great wrong, especially in the present condition of public unrest, to force such a thing upon the national community, and we believe that the people are sick and tired of the restrictions and coercions of unionism, as illustrated in their strikes, lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts, and that manufacturers' patience has been taxed to the utmost, and we can not stand for any further coercion or attempted coercion by legislative means. We believe that any eight-hour bill is revolutionary and dangerous, and we trust you will use your influence against any favorable report on this bill, and with kind regards, we are, Yours, very truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, SWINDELL BROS. ATHOL, MASS., May 11, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As progressive manufacturers and large employers of labor and having the best good of the laboring class at heart, we, some four or five years ago, voluntarily gave our employees the benefit of a nine-hour day in place of ten, without reduction of pay, and have since kept it up without any compulsory law. We believed we could stand this and yet meet competition and hold our export trade. but we find it close work to do it. Now, we learn with dismay that the anarchistic element of the laboring class is trying to make our legislators think that a compulsory eight-hour day would be in the interest of the laboring men and for the good of our country. We are writing to assure you that we believe such compulsory law would be the most damaging one that ever cursed our country and our country's people. The better class of laboring men don't want it; no manufacturer wants it. In the interest of our country we protest against it. Every patriot should and would be ashamed to live in our supposed free country hampered by laws which would abridge his freedom from engaging in any useful employment as many hours a day as he might wish. Think of it! Hotel and saloon men licensed to sell rum until 12 o'clock at night, while the honest and patriotic manufacturers and laboring classes are prohibited from working in their own interest and the interest of our country more than eight hours a day. The idea should be too ridiculous and absurd to entertain for a moment, and those seeking such legislation should be severely snubbed and taught that this is a free American country. Trusting your good sense will prompt you to refuse to report such a mischievous bill, we are, Very truly, yours, THE L. S. STARRETT Co., By L. S. STARRETT, President and Treasurer. BALTIMORE, May 11, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We have on several previous occasions taken the liberty of writing you in reference to the McComas eight-hour bill. Our attention has again been called to the fact that there is some activity now going on as to the pushing of this bill. We can not present to you too strongly the injustice the passage of such a bill would work toward all concerned. We are employers of quite a large number of men ourselves, and are glad to say that amongst those we have more than the average degree of intelligence is evident. We have found that there are only a few who desire the passage of such a bill and that the great majority of the better class of labor are not in favor of it. We had a striking proof of this in the fact that several years ago when we voluntarily reduced our time from ten to nine hours, and when we proposed to the men and put it to vote how this time should be proportioned per day, it was practically unanimously voted to work nine and one-half hours a day for five days and take half a day holiday on the sixth. This seems sufficient evidence that the one great plea advanced that eight hours is as long a time as a man physically can or should apply to manual labor is not a fact. From an economic standpoint of view, the passage of such a bill would be dangerous, as the whole scheme seems to have evolved from a revolutionary spirit amongst, fortunately, a small number of leaders of labor. We are quite sure, knowing the efficient work you have done in representing your constituents, that you will act on this bill in an absolutely unbiased manner, and as it is undoubtedly a fact that the greatest benefit to the greater community would be effected by the shelving of any such bill, we trust therefore you will recommend such action. Yours, very truly, WM. KNABE & Co. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, NEWARK EMBROIDERING WORKS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As I note that the McComas eight-hour bill is to be pressed again for a favorable report by your honorable committee, would kindly ask your consideration of my views upon this question and hope thereby to convince you that it is impolitic to favor such a law. First of all, I consider it an inherent right of every free-born individual to work for his own benefit, pleasure, or gain as many hours in a day as he may please, and any restriction in this regard would be in contravention to natural and constitutional law. This matter of time-of work and labor-properly belongs to the party who buys and the party who sells his labor. In my business I have seasons in the year where all the work offered may be done in eight hours per day, or even in less time. But, on the other hand, I have seasons where ten or more hours would not suffice to turn out the work offered. Myself and multitudes of other manufacturers, under similar circumstances, would be badly handicapped by a compulsory eight-hour law. I would lose much business, my employees would lose extra earnings, and my customers |