The evening times., 1900-03-08
EIGHT- -HOURBlLLHEARING
Opposition Offered by a New Jer.
sey Manufacturer.
He Tells the House Committee on
Labor That the Proposed Law
WonId BE "a Restriction on Per-
sOnn1 Liberty-Chairman Gardner
Replies to the Witness Criticism.

The Committee on Labor of the House
of Representatives continued its hearing
on the Eight-hour bill today. This bill
was introduced by Representative Gardner
of New Jersey on January ito limit the
hours of daily services of laborers work
men. and mechanics employed upon pub
lie works of, or work done for, the United
States. or any Territory, or the District of
Columbia" 1t limits the hours of labor
to eight day.
In the course of the four hearings which
have been held on this bill by the COM
mittee those who have appeared in oppO-
sition to it are Judge j. X. McCammon,
former Representative l.. c. PaysOn. Ed
ward J. Jennings. Capt w. G. Randle. C..
]. Hannah, President of the MidvaIe Steel
Company; r. W. Davenport, Superinten-
dent OF the Bethlehem Steel Company;
John S. Hyde. of the Bath Iron Works;
William A. Parker OF the E. w. Bliss
Company, and others. These witnesses
have been subjected to cross-examination
by Samuel Gompers, President of the
American Federation of Labor.
The first w'tncss 10 a. ~ haFnre the
Com pittee today vas V illiam Sellers, OF
New Jei sey ID n,anaIdctu. OI macninery
and machine tools. He opposed the bill,
he said, because, TO his mind, it was a
restriction upon personal liberty. He read
from the bill that clause which provides
that no man shall be permitted to work
longer than eight hours a day"
Representative Gardner. Chairman OF
the Committee and author of the bill.
corrected the witness, claiming that he
had put an erroneous construction upon
the word permit" Ii did not mean, said
Mr.. Gardner, that man was to be forcibly
prevented from working.
Mr. Sellers said he must take the law
as he found it, Continuing the witness
said he thought the bill was not in the
interest Of labor. So far as he was con-
cerned he believed that labor organiza-
tions were not responsible for the increase
OF wages and the shortening of the work
ing day. He was conscious that wages had
increased. but this was due. he thought
to economic conditions. supply and de-
mand, over which labor organizations
could have no control He thought il
quite probable that an eight-hour day
would eventually come. but it could not
be fastened by legislation.
Former Secretary Herbert. representing
the Midvale Steel Company. asked the wit
ness
DO you enter into contracts to supply
the Government directly with machinery
and machine tOols?"
Il do
What percentage of your product goes
10 the Government
Il think about per cent"
Would il be practicable for yoI 10 turn
out this work for the Government on an
eight-hour basis and for your other Gus
toners on the hour basis?'
1t would be impossible"
In reply to questions by Mr.. Herbert ard
members of the committee. the witness
said that his export trade was increasing
and that the decrease in the hours Of labor
would be equivalent to such an increase in
wages as would cut off this export trade,
and thus produce an adverse reflex effect
on the woTkTuen themselves.
long contention was caused by the
quest Con as to the separation Of Govern
ment and Government work On one
side il was maintained that the maker of
machine tools purchased by Cramp or 9TH
er Government contractors for the prose
CutiOn Of Government work would be
amenable TO the Eight hour law. IL was
held by the opponents Of the bill that If the
Eight-hour law should be applied 10 the
Of tools used in making Gov
erument machinery. it should also be ap-
piled 10 the mining OF ore used in the
tools.
\ recess was taken soon after noon.