Mr. CHADWICK. At all times. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent of the committee that Mr. Sulzer may be heard now, as he has important business in the House and desires to get away. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM SULZER. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sulzer, the committee will be glad to hear you. Mr. SULZER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, from the time I came to Congress about ten years ago, and long before then, I have always been a sincere friend and active advocate of legislation that will write on our statute books eight hours as a legal day's work. I am now, always have been, and always will be, a friend of the toilers. I want to see the coming of the brighter day when every man looking for work will find it--and do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I do not come before the committee to-day to especially impress my views upon you, because I believe the members of the committee are in sympathy with an eight-hour law, and will report favorably a bill to the House at an early day. This eight-hour bill is not a new bill in Congress. It has been here in one form or another for years. I believe I was one of the first members of Congress, however, that ever introduced a genuine eighthour bill, and from that day to this I have done all I could to engraft upon our law books a statute that will prevent the Government from working any man in its employ, or through a contractor, or a subcontractor, more than eight hours a day. On the first day of the present Congress, namely, November 9, 1903, I introduced an eight-hour bill, which is now before this committee. This eight-hour bill is the one, I think, which passed the House of Representatives in the last Congress. It is fashioned after the law of several States, and the courts have held it to be constitutional. In that respect it has good precedent. On the 18th day of November, 1903, Mr. Hitt introduced a bill along similar lines. I am not here to-day to criticise Mr. Hitt's bill.. I do not come to point out the good features of my bill, although I believe that my bill is the better one in every way, and that if it should become a law it would stand the test of the courts. This is important and should be considered. But I want to impress on the committee that I have no vanity in the matter. I want results. I want an eight-hour law. I care nothing about who gets the credit for introducing it. But I do want to say, in justice to myself, that I would like to have the committee take up both of these bills, consider them carefully, and report the better one, or a committee bill containing the best provisions of both. I want to get the bill passed. I want no glory in the matter. I am working for the interests of the toilers and the producers of the country. I believe an eight-hour law is for their benefit, and whatever is for their benefit will be for the advancement, the progress, and the prosperity of the Republic. The CHAIRMAN. There was an eight-hour bill passed as long ago as 1868. Mr. SULZER. That was entirely on different lines from this bill, and it would have accomplished nothing if it became a law. But I care nothing about that now. I am before this committee to-day urging it to report an eight-hour bill to the House before this session of Congress adjourns. If we do not get it through the House at this session of Congress, the chances are that if we pass it in the next session it will not pass the Senate ere we finally adjourn. Congress has played fast and loose with this legislation for the last ten years; and if you intend to do anything, let it be done quickly. I plead for speedy action, and I hope there will be no more delay. Mr. SPALDING. I have seen it suggested in print that this Hitt bill, which we are considering, was, in fact, a farce and a comedy, and if passed would be an imposition upon the laboring people of the country. What have you to say to that? Mr. SULZER. Only this, that in my judgment the Hitt bill is not as good an eight-hour bill as mine. I base that on personal investigation, on the opinion of leaders of organized labor, on decisions of the courts, and on the judgment of several lawyers who have compared and studied the two bills. With all due deference, I say briefly that my bill is a genuine eight-hour bill, and the courts have held identical laws constitutional. My bill will not be an experiment-it will not be taking a new road. Mr. CONNER. It is reported that Mr. Gompers looks upon the Hitt bill as very unsatisfactory and that he thinks its passage would be of but very little benefit to organized labor. Do you know anything about what his views are on that subject? Mr. SULZER. No; I have not talked with Mr. Gompers about the matter, but a representative of the American Federation of Labor is present, and he will testify before this committee that the workers of the land prefer my bill. As I said, I have no vanity in the matter. I would like to see this committee, consisting of able and capable members of the House, who have given this subject much thought, report a committee bill that will be as perfect as possible. I would like to have you report a bill that will contain the eight-hour provisions in my bill, which have been held to be constitutional by the different courts. You can not make a mistake if you do that. If we report and pass Mr. Hitt's bill just as it is we may make a mistake. I want to do the very best thing possible for organized labor in this matter. Any bill for eight hours' work a day organized labor wants I shall vote for. Now, gentlemen, I listened with some astonishment to the remarks of the gentleman who preceded me, especially when he referred to the irreparable catastrophe that would happen if an eight-hour bill should become a law. I think the gentleman's fears are unfounded. I think he fails to comprehend the scope and purpose of this legislation. If this bill becomes a law no man, no industry, will be injured. The history of the past proves it. Not so long ago men worked sixteen hours a day. When it was attempted to reduce the hours of labor from sixteen to fourteen hours a cry went up from those who bought labor that if it were successful, that if the reduction were made, it would destroy business. The reduction was made, and business went on the same as before, the only difference being that it was better for the toilers and there was a greater degree of prosperity. Then an effort was made to reduce the hours of labor from fourteen to twelve, and again the same old arguments were used, that it would ruin the industries of the land. But the hours were reduced to twelve, and the industries flourished as never before, and the men-the workmenwere better off and happier. Then came the fight to reduce the hours constituting a legal day's work from twelve to ten-and it was the old cry over again. The employers of labor said it would injure their business-the struggle went on between right and wrong-between greed and justicebetween capital and labor-and right won, labor triumphed, and ten hours became a legal day's work. It has taken years and years of patient struggle for labor to lighten its weary burden, but time which evens all things, and the logic of events, proved the fallacy of all the specious arguments which have been made against a reduction of the hours making a legal workday. The arguments the gentleman has just made, and others have made before this committee against this eight-hour bill, are not new. They have been made before, and they are as old and as hoary as they are false and presumptious. They deceive nobody but themselves. If the gentleman is as familiar with history as he pretends to be, he knows, if he knows anything, how this battle has been fought out inch by inch until finally the plain people--the producers, those who toil, those who create every dollar of real wealth-have succeeded in having the hours of labor reduced from sixteen to fourteen, and from fourteen to twelve, and from twelve to ten, and from ten, in some States, to eight hours a day. We want an eight-hour workday in the United States on Government work because all that this Government is o-day, all that it stands for, because all its glorious past, its prosperous present, and all its hopeful future stands, and stands alone, as a monument to its patriotic toilers, to its unwearied workers, to its untiring producers-a monument wrought by those who earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. I am their friend; I will always be their friend. We owe to labor all that we are to-day, and to labor we will owe all that we hope to be. A legislator that strikes a blow at honest labor strikes a blow at the cornerstone of our civilization. Mr. CHADWICK. Do you think that a man gains more power by having the hours of labor changed for him by legislative enactment, by having things provided for him, than he does by providing them for himself? Mr. SULZER. That is something of an academic question, but I will answer it. There would be no necessity for the enactment of a law like this if it were not for the greed of sordid and selfish employers. If all men were just and honest we could dispense with many laws. Mr. CHADWICK. And who makes the market condition? Does not the woman, the wife of the so-called laborer, who goes into the retail store and demands a handkerchief or garment at a low price create the price at which it is made, and is not she the one who grinds down and oppresses? I think you are getting into deep water there. Mr. SULZER. Oh, no. But you fail entirely to understand this bill or comprehend its scope and purpose. I suggest your question is irrel evant to its true intent, and I have not time to go into an academic discussion of the theory of supply and demand regulating price. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, that every writer on social and political economy, every thinker who has studied labor conditions, and every statesman who has investigated the conflict between employer and employee, between labor and capital, from Moses to Adam Smith and then down to the present time, has been an advocate in favor of reducing the legal hours of labor constituting a day's work. The history of the world shows that every reduction of the hours of labor has made for progress, for advancement and for prosperity. Moses, the great lawgiver, said eight hours for work, eight hours for refreshment and recreation, and eight hours for rest. In my judgment, no man in this country should be compelled to work more than eight hours a day. That is long enough. We want more work and fewer idle men in the United States. It has been said before this committee that if an eight-hour bill should become law there are employers of labor who will be injured because they have contracts with the Government. In answer to that I want to say briefly I do not believe they will be injured. There should be a provision in every contract made by the Government that, except in cases of extraordinary emergency, such as a state of war, no man working for the Government in any capacity should work more than eight hours a day. I am a friend of the wage-earner. I want to see, and I hope the day is not far distant when we all shall see, an eight-hour law all over the land and rigidly enforced in every State, every city, every town, and every village in the country. I believe it will be beneficial to the laborer, advantageous to the community in which he lives, and for the best interest of the Government. Too long hours make the wage-earner a poor workman. Shorter hours, in my opinion, will produce better results. I am and always have been an advocate of shorter hours for a legal working day. The history of the past teaches us that every reduction in the hours constituting a day's work has resulted beneficially. These reductions in the hours of labor have decreased intemperance, increased knowledge, made better homes, happier and better clothed wives and children, brighter and more prosperous firesides, and in every way benefited the social relations, promoted happiness and contentment, and improved the moral, economical, and financial condition of the producing masses of our land. Mr. SPALDING. Do I understand that you favor or do not favor a favorable report upon and the passage of this bill we are considering? Mr. SULZER. I hope you will report a good eight-hour bill, but rather than have you do nothing, report the Hitt bill, and when we get it into the House we will try to make it an eight-hour bill that will meet the expectations of the toilers and avoid the constitutional objections of its enemies. Mr. GOEBEL. Your suggestion would be that we take the two bills together and from them prepare a bill? Mr. SULZER. Yes. This committee has done that before, and I think it can be done again with good results. I hope the committee will report the very best bill that it can devise and construct to accomplish the purpose desired. Mr. CALDWELL. Have you talked with the president of the American Federation of Labor with regard to the merits of the bill introduced by you, and the one introduced by Mr. Hitt? Mr. SULZER. I have not. The representatives of labor here say they prefer the bill I introduced. They should know. I have here, gentlemen, a letter from a large manufacturing concern. in Chicago, the Irvine A. Rice Company. It is similar to letters I am getting from different parts of the country in favor of this legislation. This letter reads as follows: [Ervin A. Rice Co., "True Blue" New England Mince Meat.] 1707-9 SOUTH CLARK STREET, CHICAGO, January 6, 1904. DEAR SIR: Inclosed herein we hand you circular letter received by us from the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, of which we are not a member. We submit same to you in order that you may know what influences are arrayed against your eighthour bill, House bill No. 33. We also inclose herein carbon copy of letter we have just addressed to Hon. B. F. Caldwell, which explains itself. Yours, truly, Hon. WILLIAM SULZER, M. C., House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. The letter to Brother Caldwell is as follows: ERVIN A. RICE Co., JANUARY 6, 1903. DEAR SIR: We understand that you are a member of the House Committee on Labor and will have under consideration House bill No. 33, providing for a uniform eight-hour day, etc. As manufacturers and employers of labor, we wish to assure you that this bill has our hearty approval for many reasons, and we sincerely trust that your influence will be used to pass the bill in committee. We believe the existing differences between employers and employees will be best overcome and harmony prevail to the interest of all concerned if manufacturers will approve and concede such measures as this. It will put all manufacturers who do business with the Government upon the same basis, which is just and equitable, whereas at present some are compelled to adhere to the eight-hour system by reason of labor unions, while others, not being unionized, are enabled to work their men longer hours, thus giving them an advantage in connection with the matter of Government business. We might adduce other reasons, but I believe this unnecessary. The tendency is inevitably in the direction of an universal eight-hour day, and we believe all employers will conserve there ultimate best interests by recognizing this tendency and adjusting themselves to it as early as practicable. Sincerely yours, Hon. B. F. CALDWELL, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. ERVIN A. RICE CO. That letter was written in response to the following notice or letter sent out wholesale and broadcast all over the country by the Illinois Manufacturers' Association. I will read it: ILLINOIS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, DANGER OF EIGHT-HOUR LAW BEING FORCED THROUGH CONGRESS. To Manufacturers: An attempt is being made by the labor organizations to force the eight-hour day on manufacturers by a united effort to secure the passage of a measure known as House bill No. 33, introduced in the House of Representatives of the United States. November 9 by Mr. William Sulzer, of New York. The bill is now pending before the Committee on Labor. It provides that the time of service of all laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed upon any works of or any work done for the United States or any Territory or the District of Columbia, whether by contract or otherwise, shall be restricted to eight hours a day. It also provides that it shall be unlawful for any firm or person acting on behalf of the Government, or contractor or subcontractor of any public works or any work done for the United States, or any person whose duty it shall be to employ or contract and control the services of laborers, workinen, or mechanics, to require or permit them to work more than eight hours a day, except in cases of emergency. Fine and imprisonment are imposed for violations of the proposed law. The effect |