ordinarily ten hours per day and selling goods to the Government would find it a difficult proposition to regulate its affairs so as to comply with the law and at the same time successfully compete with commercial conditions. The eight-hour measure seems to be favored, so far as we are aware, only by the labor leaders and their followers, who compose but a very small part of the population of the United States. Trusting that you will do what you can to defeat the passage of any legislation of this sort, we are, Yours, respectfully, BOSTON BELTING COMPANY, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, NEW YORK, May 12, 1906. House Labor Committee, Washington D. C. DEAR SIR: We take the liberty of writing you to make our strong protest against the passage of any eight-hour bill through Congress. We think that Congress should not interfere with what appears to us to be the inalienable rights of both capital and labor in the matter of contracts for service. The writer would have been glad all through his business life to have been able to limit his hours of labor to eight per day, and if the laboring man nowadays is justified in demanding such a restriction individual employers, professional men, and, indeed, all who work for a living should be entitled to the same relief. Such a condition, however, is absolutely impossible of accomplishment, and if it were to be brought about the whole fabric of business would be honeycombed with trouble. To be sure, labor unions try to make it appear not only that there is justice in their demand for an eight-hour law, but that the great majority of workingmen demand it, but we think the last claim could not be sustained, and that if the nonunion element was allowed to vote on the question, even omitting the professional class, it would carry the day against the proposition. We in New York City particularly have suffered greatly from labor strikes, with their accompanying boycotts and criminal violations of the law, with resultant immense damage to property, injury to innocent workmen, and many deaths, and we beg of you, our representatives in Congress, not to yield to the clamor of labor unions for an eight-hour law. The public is coming to a better understanding of these great questions, and there is known to be an awakening and revulsion of feeling on the part of intelligent people, who are weary of yellow journalism and muck-rake blatherings. Yours, very truly, WILLCOX & GIBBS SEWING MACHINE Co. P. S.-To-day's New York Times has an account of serious trouble at a large number of funerals yesterday, caused by union men, who will not even let the dead rest in peace. The item is headed thus: Union drivers stop and stone funerals-Strike prevents 80 out of 100 set for yesterday." [R. C. Jenkinson & Co., manufacturers of metal goods.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, NEWARK, N. J., May 12, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I appeal to you in behalf of the New Jersey manufacturers, members of the National Association of Manufacturers, and including some 3,000 firms, to use your influence in defeating the eight-hour bill" now before your committee. It is revolutionary and dangerous and will hurt us in the North particularly, as in the South they have now a great advantage over us in that the longer days and milder climate permits them to work longer, and their State laws do not prohibit it. We are burdened with high material and high wages and all the other blessings that come with prosperous times and a fiftynine-hour-per-week law. E H-06-13 A forty-eight-hour-per-week law on Government work would kill that branch of our business. We personally are now bidding on work for the Government, and we can not compete with the German and French imported goods under an eight-hour law, as even with the duty and freight over the Atlantic the cheaper German and French labor and material prevent our getting our share of the trade of the manufacturers who are our customers here. I hope you will not report this bill favorably. RICHARD C. JENKINSON. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, PROVIDENCE, R. I., May 12, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to call your attention to the proposed eight-hour bill, which we understand is before the House Labor Committee, of which you have the honor to be a member. As far as our business is concerned, this would be a most dangerous law to pass. We have a busy and a dull season in each year, both of which periods are about equally divided, and to be compelled to have an eight-hour day would be great hardship to us and to our employees as well. Our help are all well satisfied, and there is no call for legislation of this character except from leaders of the labor union, and it would be a serious blow to the business interests of this country, and to our branch of business especially, to pass such an act. Trusting that you will find it to be your duty to conserve the business interests of the people as a whole rather than to legislate at the dictation of a class, said class being a very small majority of the people as a whole, we remin, Very respectfully, yours, WAITE-THRESHER COMPANY. Treasurer. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, MILWAUKEE, WIS., May 12, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Please defeat that or any eight-hour bill. It is uncalled for by any existing condition, is dangerous, destructive, and revolutionary, and domineering, and unworthy of any true American spirit. Yours, very truly, CHAIN BELT COMPANY, C. W. LEVALLEY, President. KALAMAZOO, MICH., May 12, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Our attention is again called to the dangerous McComas eighthour bill, which is now being pressed by various committees to the honorable House Labor Committee, and while the writer is very much in favor of conservative unionism, and our plant is almost entirely operated by union men. still there are a great many reasons from a manufacturer's standpoint why such a bill as the McComas eight-hour bill should not be passed. Manufacturers have experiences with labor men that other men not manufacturers do not have, and I am sure that manufacturers do not want to impose upon any labor union or any other body any undue or unfair conditions or requirements, and it does seem if these matters were left alone to the various State courts to care for and take charge of it would be very much better. The prosperous condition of this country is to-day threatened by the unreasonable and unjust demands of labor unions, not because they are unions, but because of the unreasonableness of those who are at the head of them. There are various unions connected with our own business that are the very best anyone could wish for, and there are others so unreasonable as to make it almost impossible to get along with them, and manufacturers as a rule do not under any circumstances wish to antagonize unionism, but the methods they employ, and any advantage that you give them, such as these eight-hour bills or the anti-injunction bills imperils the backbone of this country and the very things that these men depend upon for their existence, and without wishing to criticise any member of this committee in any way, we earnestly trust that each and every one of that committee will give this matter the best attention that the occasion demands. Thanking you in advance for anything you desire to do for the best interests of the manufacturers of this country, we beg to remain, Yours, very truly, KALAMAZOO STOVE COMPANY, Vice-President and General Manager. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, New Jersey. NEWARK, N. J., May 12, 1906. DEAR SIR: I have come to our notice that the old McComas eight-hour bill has recently been brought before your honorable body, known as the House committee. We again take the liberty of addressing you, and wish to state that the passing of a favorable report or permitting any eight-hour bill to be reported. especially under the present conditions of public interest, would be a great wrong to the national community. Trusting you will coincide with us in that the legislation of any such bill would be detrimental to our manufacturing industries, and that the said bill or any other of like character will be set aside by your honorable body, as heretofore, we are. Yours, truly, P. RIELLY & SON. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. WILKESBARRE, PA., May 12, 1906. DEAR SIR: I wish to urge your committee to report unfavorably any and all eight-hour bills that may come before you, for the reason that such a law would be very injurious to the best interest of our country and the welfare of the working people. Yours, truly, B. FRANK MYERS. BUFFALO, N. Y., May 12, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am very much interested in the McComas eight-hour bill. From my point of view this bill assails American liberty, to say nothing of American prosperity. This bill would prevent competition from many of the best manufacturers for Government work. Ultimately, if the entire country were compelled to work eight hours whether they chose or not, and continued to be hampered by all the petty exactions that are a part of union domination, the United States could not expect to compete with the nations of the world in export business, which is so necessary to our ultimate prosperity. You are no doubt well aware of conditions in Australia, where influences such as are pressing this bill are now dominant. It seems to me independence of thought and courage are as necessary to the welfare of the United States in this matter as they were in handling the problems of 1861. I sincerely hope you will oppose this measure in every possible way. Yours, truly, BUFFALO SCALE COMPANY, Hon. J. G. GARDNER, POUGHKEEPSIE, N. Y., May 12, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Will you permit us a line in regard to the eight-hour bill, which is now being pressed in Congress? We object most emphatically to this bill for many reasons-it is class legislation; it interferes with individual freedom. and is not only a menace to business, but, if enacted, would seriously disturb manufacturing industries in all sections of the country. Coercive unionism is decidedly un-American and aims to be tyrannical to the full limit. We therefore trust you will not permit an eight-hour bill to be reported out of your committee. Yours, truly, ADRIANCE, PLATT & Co.. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. MILWAUKEE, WIS., May 12, 1906. DEAR SIR: During the present session of Congress there will undoubtedly be considerable agitation on the part of supporters of the various eight-hour bills which have been introduced in the House. In our opinion, it will be very unfortunate if the Labor Committee of the House reports favorably on any of these bills, and we take this occasion to place ourselves on record as strongly opposed to any legislation which will tend to force an eight-hour day into the factories of the country. 66 We think it unnecessary to call your attention to the many strong arguments which can be made against the so-called eight-hour bills," for it is certain that any such legislation is extremely dangerous and can have only bad results. Very truly, yours, PFISTER & VOGEL LEATHER CO. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. PITTSBURG, PA., May 12, 1906. HONORABLE SIR: We beg to call your attention to the McComas eight-hour bill, you being a member of the House Labor Committee, and ask you to oppose the passage of same. We, the manufacturers in this line in and about Pittsburg, Pa., are working nine hours per day in our plants, paying the rate per day established by the trades union here. In former years we did considerable export business, which has almost entirely been absorbed by other markets, owing to the cost of producing with us, and should the McComas bill be passed it would simply mean a further increase in the cost of producing, and would certainly be followed by a further increased rate per day, which occurred when the hours were changed from ten to nine per day. The customary working hours are from 7.30 a. m. to 5 p. m., quitting 3 to 4 p. n. Saturdays, which certainly is not a long or burdensome day. We and others find it very difficult to run our plant with the nine-hour day during ordinary business demands, when it becomes necessary to draw from larger field for trade. Hoping we will have your assistance, and thanking you in advance for same, we are. Yours, respectfully, THE JAMES LAPPAN MFG. CO. MUNCIE, IND., May 12, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I notice that the eight-hour bill has now come up before you, and certain parties are urging the passing of this bill, and we earnestly urge that you do all you can to discourage the passing of this bill. As manufacturers using hundreds of both union and nonunion men, we be lieve that it would be a great detriment to our country and would take away the rights of manufacturers that have made the country what it is to-day. We are aware that you are well posted on this subject, but personally ask that you use all the influence you can in killing this McComas eight-hour bill. Yours, truly, Hou. JOHN J. GARDNER, BALL BROS. GLASS MFG. CO. GREENFIELD, OHIO, May 12, 1906. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As a member of the House Labor Committee, we desire to write you just briefly concerning a proposed eight-hour bill which, we understand, certain interests are urging your committee to favorably report. We believe upon careful investigation it will become apparent at once that the time is not ripe for an eight-hour working day. In our judgment. the passage of such a law and its enforcement at this time would prove ruinous to the manufacturing industries of this country. Indeed, we believe it would be little short of a crime to enforce an eight-hour working day now, and we wish to place ourselves on record as being unalterably opposed to such legislation. We believe in progress and in laws which will guarantee full protection to the interests of all. Again, we are favorable always to legislation tending to better general conditions. However, this seems to be largely an effort on the part of trade unions to force an eight-hour day on the manufacturers without regard to either conditions or consequences. Such a thing at this time would prove ruinous, both to the manufacturer and working man. In presuming to express ourselves thus freely, it is not with any thought of dictating or even suggesting the course any member of your committee should pursue. Our only thought is to just place ourselves on record, and it quite naturally follows we feel such a bill should not receive favorable consideration. We therefore hope it may be consistent to oppose a favorable report of any measure now providing for an eight-hour day. The time may come when this will be all right, but it is not now opportune. Thanking you for the full consideration we feel sure this will receive at your hands, and placing ourselves subject to your commands, we are, Yours, truly, THE AMERICAN PAD AND TEXTILE COMPANY. Per CHAS. MAINS, Secretary. NEW HAVEN, CONN., May 12, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to enter our protest very strongly against what is known as the McComas eight-hour bill." We are putting in some estimates for Government work, and should withdraw all our prices and give up any idea of doing work for the Government if a bill anything like the McComas bill should pass Congress. We are running our shop ten hours a day, and our men are very willing to work that time, and we should not care to do any work for the Government under any conditions if such a bill was passed. The eight-hour bill we consider revolutionary, and we think we have a right to work our shop on such hours and under such conditions as may be thought best for us and for the men who work for us. We are sick and tired of restrictions and coercions of unionisms and will not stand for any further coercion by legislative means. Yours, truly, THE NATIONAL PIPE BENDING COMPANY. NEW YORK, May 12, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Member House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We desire, as employers of shop labor at our Syracuse factory department and road labor throughout the United States, to voice our objection to the McComas eight-hour bill, which we understand will soon be brought to the attention of your honorable committee. |