Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. BRIDGETON, N. J., May 25, 1906. DEAR SIR: We wish herewith to urge you not for anything to allow any eight-hour bill in its present form or any amended form to be reported favorably to the House. We believe that you have already received many similar letters from manufacturers with similar requests. We, however, take the liberty herewith of inclosing a page (No. 8) from American Industries with thirty-three reasons why this should not be favorably reported. We believe you can not help but see that many of these reasons are good ones. Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration in this matter, we are, Yours, truly, FERRACUTE MACHINE Co., Per E. PAULLIN, Secretary. Thirty-three reasons why the Gompers-McComas-Gardner eight-hour bill does not deserve to be reported favorably by the labor committee of the House, because: 1. It is absolutely necessary that every manufacturer be allowed a free hand in the conduct of his business, establishing hours of labor according to his requirements and the general conditions existing in each locality. 2. The majority, if not all, of the manufacturers who undertake Government contracts also manufacture for the open market and operate their plants more than eight hours per day, and have to do so under the laws of competition. 3. Contracts on a limited-hour basis could not be handled in conjunction with contracts on an unlimited basis, and consequently Government work would be prohibited in factories where the eight-hour day was made compulsory by act of Congress. 4. It is quite customary to introduce penalty clauses on Government contracts, and if the proposed law were passed it would not permit of a contractor working overtime in order to make deliveries within the contract time, a great wrong, as such delays would have arisen from conditions entirely. beyond his control. 5. The refusal of contractors to undertake Government work on account of the limited-hour basis would result in an increased cost of supplies to the Government and in causing serious inconvenience owing to inability to secure articles required for the successful operation of the various Departments. 6. In the present prosperous and crowded condition of manufacturing establishments it is extremely difficult to secure sufficient competent men to run one shift of ten hours, which condition would make it almost impossible to secure a proper force to run two shifts of eight hours each. 7. If possible to obtain a sufficient force to run two shifts of eight hours each, under normal conditions of business, the volume would not be sufficient to require two shifts constantly, therefore the second shift of men would have to be discharged as soon as the Government contract was completed, which would cause great hardship to any men who might have moved their families to a certain vicinity in order to secure positions. 8. The necessity for dropping the second shift on the completion of a Government contract would have such an effect upon the men that, had it been possible to secure a sufficient number of men on one occasion to run two shifts, the probability of securing a sufficient number a second time would be remote. 9. The expenses of getting two shifts into working order would be such as to cause a loss of the profit on the contract. 10. Workmen are quite willing to work overtime occasionally, that they may help their employer build up a business which will insure to them a permanent position, but they would be prevented from so doing by the proposed law. 11. Under a law as proposed a man who worked only one hour on Government work would be restricted from working in excess of eight hours for that entire day, even though engaged upon private work. 12. In most establishments it would be impossible to divide and separate Government contracts from general work while in process. 13. In completing a contract it is usually necessary to make purchases of some materials or finished articles (used in filling such Government contract) from other manufacturers, and it would be impossible for the contractor to secure such goods if subcontractors were placed under penalty of producing these goods on an eight-hour day; and such goods might be for one item only and of trifling value. 14. It would restrict the working hours of an individual to eight per day, whether that work should be for one or more contractors or for the workman himself, and any contractor on Government work employing such a man is liable to a fine for each employee who had worked in excess of eight hours. 15. The passage of the proposed law would be an unwarranted trespass upon the individual rights of both manufacturer and artisans, and the limiting of hours of service in private establishments is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. 16. The bill as proposed exempts railroads and transportation companies, and is therefore class legislation. 17. The law would limit the earning power of the workman. 18. Such a law as proposed is not constitutional. 19. It would involve the impossibility of producing all products in a day of eight hours, it now being impossible to produce some products in a day of ten hours. As an illustration, a mold could not be finished in eight hours, and it would not be possible to secure a man to work one or two hours a day only to complete that mold. 20. A contractor might be compelled to suffer on a complaint which might be unfounded. 21. The bill would require an executive officer of the Government to exercise judicial functions. 22. A law such as is proposed would be made use of to blackmail contractors; and there are several thousand of them, and they have a right to live. 23. Under the proposed law the contractor would be deprived of property without due process of law in cases where the Government sustains no damages or delay. 24. If the Government may legislate and enforce the number of hours in the factories of the country, it may also require that workmen of a certain standard shall be employed upon its work, whether directly or under contract. 25. Ownership of material manufactured by a private corporation for the Government does not pass until completion and acceptance by the Government. 26. After the contract is awarded for the delivery of goods, the matter of supply, labor, etc., is one in which the Government has no right of control. 27. The bill would not permit of a forty-eight or fifty-four hour week, but would limit every contractor and, finally, every manufacturer, to an eight-hour day. 28. It would be impossible for concerns which might elect to operate on an eight-hour day to compete on private work with establishments which were operating on a nine or ten hour day and doing no Government work. 29. The law is proposed by organized labor, which represents only a small proportion (about 8 per cent) of the workingmen. 30. All the arguments of "labor" are directed to reasons why an eight-hour law is best for the workingman. They are silent upon the points of its impracticability of application to the business of private contractors. 31. The goods contracted for may or may not be made after the contract is awarded; hence there could be no certainty as to where it would or would not apply. 32. Were it possible to keep Government work separate, and so to allow workmen on such contracts to cease work at the end of eight hours, while those engaged upon work for the open market continued for a longer period, a spirit of discontent would at once arise, creating a thorough demoralization of the working forces, with disastrous results to all, the men included. 33. The enormous volume of export trade which has been secured by the absolute freedom of manufacturers as to working hours and systems of manufacture would be greatly curtailed, if not entirely lost, should an eight-hour day become the regulation working day throughout the country, which the passage of such a bill would have a tendency to bring about and is intended to bring about. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Representative in Congress. PEORIA, ILL., May 26, 1906. DEAR SIR: We must express ourselves very strongly against the eight-hour bill now pending before your committee. We earnestly request that you do not press to a favorable report or permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. The union labor leaders are endeavoring to establish a precedent in this matter, so that in future they may use it as an argument that no one shall work over eight hours in a day. We believe that the people of these United States are still free and should remain so, and if some one desires to labor nine or ten hours, who shall say him nay? Such a law absolutely destroys the freedom of the citizen, and we hardly think it constitutional. We ask you to make every effort to defeat a favorable report of this eighthour bill, and sincerely believe you will be doing justice to all the employers of labor in our city of 80,000 people. Respectfully, yours, PLANCK BROS. PEORIA, ILL., May 28, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Representative in Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We take this opportunity of expressing ourselves in no uncertain terms against the present eight-hour bill which is pending before your committee. We most earnestly request that you do not press to a favorable report or permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. We believe that this is only a wedge used by the union labor leaders to eventually force all employers of labor to work their men only eight hours a day. If the Government establishes that rule by law, they will then use this as an argument to make all other employers to use the same rule. Such a law destroys the freedom of a laborer to sell his labor on such terms as he sees fit and prevents the employer from employing to the best advantagea blow at the freedom of trade. It is our desire that you use every reasonable and just means to defeat a favorable report of this eight-hour bill, and we believe that this is the sentiment of all the employers of labor in this city of 80,000. Yours, very respectfully, J. W. FRANKS & SONS. Per GERALD B. FRANKS, President. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, THE MANUFACTURING JEWELERS' ASSOCIATION, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At a meeting of the board of managers of the Manufacturing Jewelers' Association, of Newark, N. J., to consider the proposed eight-hour bill, the inclosed resolutions were unanimously adopted, and, as instructed, I herewith hand them to you. Our association will greatly appreciate your cooperation in saving us from any such unwise legislation. Never in our history has labor been so well paid nor have the conditions of labor been so favorable. The best results will come from allowing these economic questions to work themselves out. Legislation, in our judgment, can only create confusion and work hardship and injustice to many interests. Very respectfully, GEO. R. HOWE, President. THE MANUFACTURING JEWELERS' ASSOCIATION, Whereas persistent and renewed effort is being made by the labor unions of the country, through a lobby maintained for years at the national capital, to pass a bill "that no laborers or mechanics" employed on a Government contract or on a subcontract “shall be permitted or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day," and "each and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each violation," etc.; and E H-06-15 Whereas the members of the Manufacturing Jewelers' Association, of Newark, N. J., are unalterably opposed to such a law or any legislation that interferes with the existing prosperity of the country, on which alone they, as manufacturers of luxuries depend: Therefore, be it Resolved, First, that we enter our most earnest protest against this eighthour bill now before the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives; second, that we most respectfully petition Hon. John J. Gardner, the Representative of our State, on said committee, to use his influence and best endeavors to oppose any such bill; third, that we desire to go on record as opposing class legislation of any kind that would give special advantages to a limited class in our country at the expense of and to the detriment of their fellow-citizens, all of whom are guaranteed equal rights and privileges under our form of government; be it further Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions, signed by the president and attested by the secretary of this association, be forwarded to Hon. John J. Gardner. GEO. R. HOWE, President. NEWARK, N. J., May 29, 1906. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, M. C., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is to be presented before the House for action at an early date. And from our views of the subject, we think any such action will be detrimental to the interest of the employee as well as the employer, also the general public, as in our class of goods it increases the cost of production to the public and lessens the earning power of the employee, which is largely piecework. As any eight-hour bill will be dangerous for either interest, we ask you to use every influence you can against such favorable report or permit any eight-hour bill whatsoever. Yours, very truly, BATTIN & Co., V. W. BRUNDAGE, Treasurer. PENSACOLA, FLA., May 16, 1906. Whereas, in view of the fact that the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America, through its officers, D. M. Parry, president; F. H. Stillman, treasurer, and Marshall Cushing, secretary, are praying through confidential letters to commercial bodies and business men throughout the country to use undue influence against the eight-hour bill now before the House Labor Committee: Be it Resolved, By the labor organizations of Pensacola, Fla., and surrounding district, assembled on this date, that our Representative, Hon Frank Clark, be respectfully requested in the interest of good law and order, good patriotism, good public policy, and for the benefit of the laboring class in general, to use his influence and vote in favor of any eight-hour bill that may come up; also to use every available influence with the House Labor Committee to make a favorable report on the same; be it further Resolved, That a copy of the confidential letters be attached to these resolutions for your more explicit information. THOS. JOHNSON, JOHN O'BRIEN, DAN. MURPHY, FRANK J. RIEN, SAM. B. FLYNN, J. B. WILTERS, W. M. LOUNSBERRY, W. A. WATTS. |