The San Francisco call., 1898-11-02

spired with the corporation to commit the of-
 fense remains to be tested:
 That the new Postoffce should De p1iit unue1 nnon l the conditions imposed by MT. kelso upon upon his workmen is a disgrace to those who nave control of the work.
 The Kelso case was one of the nrsc | brought in the local courts under the | eight-hour law. The Kelso company han the contract for excavating the new fost- once site and 1t was compelling us men
 to work nine hours a day. John heiso, the president of the company, was m dicted for violating the law and the case came befor Commissioner Heacock. It re suited in the dismissal of Keiso on the ground that the company and not he was tried
 The law was so drawn that it admitted of only this construction, and 1t was tnls that Judge Mcguire so deeply depiored. 10 prevent repetition of the helso nasSo Assistant United States Attorney Knight compiled an amendment to the law py which not only contracting corporations but those who directed them would De liable to punishment, and this amendment was sent on to Washington to Judge Ma guire. He promised to look out for the bill and that was the last the WorknS- men of California heard of it.
 Maguire's inactivity finally caused comr plalnt and letters were sent to him oe- mandfng an explanation or his course June 15, 1898, he answered one of his in- quirers as follows:
 Dear sir-Your letter of May 1s, inclosing copy of ~our letter to Samuel Gomners and others came duly to hand. The unfortunate situation here with respect to the eight-hour law has been that 1t could secure consideration in Congress only as a compromise measure AS such the legislative committee of the American Federation of Labor made an agreement with Labor, and the other leading representatives or the Republican party now dominant in the passage of the act, which was passed by the House of Representatives without amendment ceiyed consideration in the House. Contest over an amendment would have enabled members of the House who were willing to carry out the agreement reached, but who are not at all friendly to the eight-hour law any similar Legislation to defeat the entire bill by consuln- ing the time allowed to the committee Tor Us consideration. The bill had to be brought up committees being called in turn from time to time and presenting for the consideration of the to be passed within the hour or returned to the calendar, where they are never likely to De reached. Under those circumstances, at the earnest solicitation of the committee on the eight-hour law of the American Federation of Labor l refrained from either presenting tay my which they had agreed upon and which secured agreement To have pressed my own bill or to have pressed an amendment to the compromise feated the eight-hour bill for the present ses- sion. Had I taken such action as would have involved that result the committee on the eight-hour law and the entire American Fed eration of Labor would of course have held me responsible for the failure of their measure. and while they fully realized that the measure is defective they feel, and have felt that it was all that they could possibly obtain at the present session of Congress. and that an at tempt to secure more would have resulted in utter failure. They have simply been obliged to bow to conditions which they could not con trol and to accept such improvements in the eight-hour law the solid phaianx of hos tile majority would yield to them.
 With kindest regards, remain. very truly yours JAMES G. MAGUIRE.
 Replying to another eager correspond ent Magufre wrote on June 22 1898:
 Dear Sir: Your letter relating to the eight hour bill reached me some time ago: It con- tained the first intimation l had that there was any disagreement between the Building Trades Council of San Francisco and the Ma tional Federation of Labor on the question.
 immediately looked into the. matter and had President Gompers of the National Federation write to the Building Trades Council stating National Federation of Labor made an agree