Readjustment was made more difficult because loan charges were fixed in terms of money, and with falling prices more exports were required to pay for them; but with the continuance of the precrisis level of prices the burden of public debt could have been carried easily enough. In any case, public overcapitalization was no greater than occurred in private industry, either in New Zealand or the United States. Government and business failed equally in forecasting the fall in world prices, so that on this score criticism attaches equally to both. Further, the national debt in New Zealand was mainly for development projects which it is not likely that private enterprise would have undertaken on a large enough scale. It is backed by valuable assets in the form of railways, electric power plants, bridges, and extensive areas of developed land, which have enormously increased resources. The depression in New Zealand cannot, in fairness, be attributed to any considerable extent to internal policy. New Zealand is a country peculiarly dependent on overseas trade, and between 50 and 60 percent of the national income is directly affected by a fall in the prices of exports. Between 1929 and 1932 New Zealand export prices fell over 40 percent. The value of exports fell from £56,000,000 to £35,000,000 and of farm production from £82,000,000 to £49,000,000. The national income declined from £150,000,000 to about £100,000,000. It is conditions such as these which explain the severity of the depression in New Zealand, and not several decades of Socialist legislation. The recovery program instituted by the New Zealand Government in 1932 was in line with previous policy in that it involved the recognition that private enterprise was hopelessly incompetent to handle the situation, so that governmental action was necessary. Such action took many unprecedented forms, even to the extent of interfering with private contracts. But it seems to have worked surprisingly well, since few, if any, countries show a greater measure of recovery. Despite a deficit of over £8,000,000 (or over one-third of the normal budget) in the depths of the depression, the national accounts have been balanced for 2 consecutive years. During the past 2 or 3 years the value of production has increased from £84,000,000 to £99,000,000, wages and salaries paid have increased from £59,000,000 to £65,000,000, and unemployment has declined from over 50,000 to about 32,000. I am far from claiming that these results follow entirely from the recovery program, but it certainly was a very important contributory factor. I would agree with Mrs. Blomfield that there is a tendency among New Zealanders to put a premium on mediocrity, be suspicious of brilliancy and doubt originality; but in this I do not know that they are very different from other mainly rural communities. Mrs. Blomfield would hardly find me convincing if I were to attribute the extreme vagaries of the weather in the United States or the tone of burlesque shows on Broadway to the rugged American individualism which she fears would be endangered by old-age pensions. Might I be permitted to suggest that much of her argument on the New Deal in New Zealand is equally unconvincing? H. BELSHAW, Dean of Faculty of Commerce, Auckland University College. WASHINGTON, D. C., July 22, 1936. The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Hillman here? There was a gentleman. here who said he wanted to testify this morning. He was connected with the truck drivers. Is he here? STATEMENT OF JOHN R. RIGGLES (APPEARING IN HIS OWN BEHALF) Mr. RIGGLES. I do not really represent the truck drivers, but I appear here in the interest of the Maryland roads because of the traffic hazards that are caused by interstate trucks. The CHAIRMAN. What is your business? Mr. RIGGLES. I am chairman of the public-utilities committee out here in Maryland, but I was only interested in the fact that some of the truck drivers, I will not say how many, have been arrested in the last 4 or 5 years for being asleep while driving. I have taken a little interest in the case and have come to find out what I can about it. They run from Florida to New York and back on a trip, and they were exhausted when they went to sleep on these trucks. I think the law that you are discussing should, in some way, limit the hours to 40 hours a week. These are interstate trucks that go through our State. There are many of them, because the trucks from the South go to the North and they go through Washington, D. C. It is a hard industry to limit, for the simple reason that there are many in it, and some of them for certain times of the year are busy for about 3 or 4 months. Those that come from Florida come as far as the Virginia line and then they get telegrams, and if you limit them to 8 or 10 hours a day for driving with two men on the truck they could not get there. It would cause a great hardship. Our State does not want to do anything that is detrimental to the working people, but they want laws passed that will save the lives of pedestrians and people, and others on the road. One driver told me this yesterday, that the truck drivers are safe, we will have to give them credit for that, but they have got a living to make, and this driver said that he was coming along and there was a car in front of him wigwagging, so he slowed down, and the lady that was driving the car turned over in the ditch, and when he found her she was so drunk she could not get up, and she said, "Did you see the truck cut me off?" Now, if you regulate the industry, or if you limit the industry to just the big companies, the industry of three or four trucks will be put out of business, because there are some people in the business that just have four trucks, and if one big company gets it all the small company will be without a means of livelihood. Now, there is another question that comes up, that is vital, and that is in regard to sleeping quarters. Many drivers have to sleep in trucks; they cannot pick up the man that they leave behind; it would be a great expense for them, and they have, as the result, to sleep in the trucks, which have very poor sleeping accommodations, so at times I think they should be limited to 16 hours; you could not make it 40 hours a week. Sometimes they go to Florida, and sometimes to Boston and maybe back there in 40 hours. If you make it 80 hours, or 2 weeks, then they would get a rest when they get to their home. That is vitally important in our State, because all the trucks go through there from the North or from the South. The CHAIRMAN. All right; thank you very much. I will say that we have here some gentlemen representing the National Association of Credit Jewelers who wish to testify today or tomorrow. We have a very full docket tomorrow. He is here and wishes to testify. STATEMENT OF J. FRANK NEWMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT JEWELERS The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name? Mr. NEWMAN. My name is J. Frank Newman. I am executive secretary of the National Association of Credit Jewelers, with headquarters in the Columbus Memorial Building, 31 North State Street. Chicago, Ill. This association is composed of members of retail jew elers in practically every State in the Union. I am authorized to represent approximately 1,800 jewelers before this committee. Our concern over this bill arises out of the nature and character of our business. At the outset, I desire to say that we are not concerned with the question of minimum pay, as I feel certain that whatever minimum wage may be determined would be much less than that paid in our industry. We are concerned with the question of maximum hours. In order that you might understand what I intend to convey, it is necessary to give you a very brief statement of our business and the conditions surrounding it. There are many retail jewelers who may be classified as doing business in interstate commerce, in that they both buy and sell in interstate commerce as defined in this act. This is particularly true of the larger jewelry concerns and mail-order jewelers. I am assuming that this bill is designed to affect such interests. The jewelry business, by its very nature, is a specialized and seasonal one. A great volume of business is transacted between May 1 and July 1 and November 1 and December 24 of each year. Indeed, between those dates approximately 80 percent of the yearly volume of business is done. Between these dates, particularly between November 1 and December 24, it is necessary that the retail jewelry establishments remain open for business, in most places, from 9 a. m. to 10 p. m., and this has been their custom for many, many years. Also, by reason of the fact that it is a specialized business, it is necessary to have employees who are acquainted with, and indeed specialists in their line. Such employees are of necessity limited in number, and, obviously, high wages are paid during these seasonal operations. It therefore becomes necessary to oppose any legislation that does not definitely and clearly take these facts into consideration. It would be disastrous to our industry if a law should be enacted which might, by construction and application, affect our industry in such a manner as to force us to pay a fixed minimum wage the year around or to establish a maximum workweek of, say, 40 hours. You can see at a glance that between the dates I have mentioned business conditions imperatively demand long hours, good pay, and highly specialized employees. During those seasonal periods we are not concerned in any manner with the minimum-wage provisions of the act, but we are seriously concerned with the maximum-hour provisions of the act. You may say that we are protected by the provisions of sections 5 (b) (4) and 6 (c) of the act. As we understand those sections, they may be so interpreted and applied by the Labor Standards Board as to give that Board the power to fix minimum wages and maximum hours for our industry the year around. Certainly, the power to investigate, yes, even the duty to investigate, is imposed upon the Board in order to arrive at a determination as to just how our industry should operate with reference to wages and hours of employment. It is just that condition, and power of the Board, which impels us to appear in opposition to legislation which might, by construction of the Board, empowered with the duty of enforcement, be so construed as to impose any conditions or limitations upon the hours of employment in our particular business. We believe that the act should by clear and explicit language exempt retail jewelers from its application. We do not want the Labor Standards Board to be given authority or power over our industry. We fear the possibility, even the probability, of the imposition of conditions and limitations which would be ruinous. There can be found no prevailing conditions in our business which warrant or justify either legislative or executive interference with our labor conditions. In our opinion, if you are desirous of legislating with reference to our business relative to wages and hours we suggest that the only power delegated to the Labor Standards Board should be that of initiating and conducting its own investigation and then by its order determining only one thing, and that is whether or not the retail jewelry business is exempt from the provisions of this bill. I thank you for your time and consideration. The CHAIRMAN. That is all the witnesses that we have today. We will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow. (Whereupon, at the hour of 4 p. m., the committee recessed until 10 a. m. of the following day, Tuesday, June 15, 1937.) FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1937 TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1937 UNITED STATES SENATE, JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON Washington, D. C. The joint committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Hugo L. Black (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Hugo L. Black, James E. Murray, Rush D. Holt, Allen J. Ellender, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., and James J. Davis; Representatives William P. Connery, Robert Ramspeck, Matthew A. Dunn, Reuben T. Wood, Jennings Randolph, Richard J. Welch, Fred A. Hartley, William P. Lambertson, Albert Thomas, Joseph A. Dixon, William F. Allen, and Santiago Iglesias. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. George H. Davis. Mr. D'AVIS. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis, you are the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. DAVIS, PRESIDENT, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is George H. Davis. I am president of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. I am president of the firm of DavisNoland-Merrill Grain Co. of Kansas City, Mo., and my home is in Kansas City. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States is an organization of businessmen's organizations, about 1,500 of them in all parts of the country being members. These organizations determine all of the policies supported by the chamber. As in our organization it takes a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast to reach a decision, our policies represent views strongly predominant throughout the membership. Besides, as no member may have more than 10 votes, and the number of votes is graded down from that point according to membership, the voting strength lies in organizations of moderate and small size. Many organizations are in communities where agricultural interests are uppermost, just as others are in communities where commercial and industrial interests prevail. To aid us we have departments giving their constant attention to questions in the |