The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-10
A DEFENCE OF COMBINATIONS.
Lyman r. Hopkins Testifies Before
the Industrial COmmi ssiOn.

the Industrial Comm issiOn.
Lyman r. Hopkins. President of the
American Thread Company, appeared be-
| fore the Industrial Commission yesterday
and testified as to trusts from different
point of view than that of Charles r.
Flint. the promoter. who was the wit
ness of the day before Mr.. Hopkins. as
he himself stated. is n self-made man.
and was qualified to testify on the sub
ject of Industrial combinations both from
the standpoint of employer and employed.
Responding to questions in regard to the
Thread Trust. he said that the American
Thread Company was organized In 1898,
to unite the business of sixteen manu-
fdcturers of spool. crochet. knitting
mending. and other cettons. including. in
some cases, the allied business of cotton
spinning, doubling twisting. dyeing.
bleaching. polishing. spoo1-naiSing, etc.
The business of the company began on
April l, 1899, and at the present time there
were outstanding si.2e0,0oo in common
stock, A.s90.4I5 in preferred stock. and So
90 in bonds.
He was a thorough believer. he said,
in the advantage of combination on
conservative and suitable basis. 1t ad-
mitted of economies which are in the gen
eral interest, and that. instead of being
menace and forcing prices upward, it
was necessary In order to keep prices at
minimum, SO as not TO invite competi-
ton. 3i-r
1nasmuch as there was an immense
amount of capital in the United States
awaiting investment, any attempt at an
inordinate profit in the carrying on of
any considerable business was sure in
vitation to rivalries and competition. The
only protection was to keep prices low,
and the manufacturer had to rely for his
return on the magnitude of his transac-
tions and not on an extravagant rate of
profit. Low prices meant enlarged output,
and prices were kept down by the neces-
sity of the situation for the manufac-
turers
Mr.. Hopkins said that, in his belief, 1t
was TO the manufacturers interest to
unite capital. talent. and effort, but that,
to give success to such a union. it was
essential that the character of the prod
uct be kept up to the highest possible
standard and furnished at the lowest pos
sible price. He did not believe that there
was necessarily an antagonism between
apital and labor Capital and labor
should be hampered as little as possible
with restrictions, and should be left to
work out their salvation in their own way.
Whatever the course elsewhere, in this
country it was impossible for capital to
tyranniZe over labor. The laboring
classes were too intelligent: too conscious
of their own power, and understood too
well the value of labor combinations, the
force of public opinion. and the POSSIBLE
ity of resort to legislation, if that was
necessary. If anyone suffered from labor
combinations. 1t was the class of skilled.
capable. and industrious employees who.
by uHieas and such organizations. were
reduced to a lower standard of work
capacity, and intelligence, and were thus
deprived of what was honestly their due.
Ut was his experience that the better men
suffered from such combinations.
There We're. of course, some purposes
for which labor should combine, as he
realized the truth of the saying, I'm
numbers there is strength" In neither
the American Thread Company, nor in
the independent companies now included
in the trust, had there been any trouble
from strikes. The effort had always been
to keep harmonious relations with the
employees. to pay them fair price, and
TO see that il was to their interests to
serve faithfully. The work in this case
was skilled labor, and was paid for by
the piece and by time. The rates which
were received constituted fair remuner-
alton. and should provide satisfactorily
Tor the prudent and economical bringing
up of a family.
Mr.. Hopkins said he was not opposed
to strikes as long as they were not at
tended by violence, he thought labor
should have the same right to protect
itself in any lawful way that belonged TO
capital. He doubted, however whether
an actual resort to strikes resulted bene-
hcially to labor. Employers would not
extreme IL, by agreement or in some
cases by arbitration, labor was willing
to make reasonable arrangement.
There would ordinarily be no difficulty
II the question We're between a particular
manufacturer and his particular en-
pioyes. 1t was the Intervention of outside
influence that prevented satisfactory
agreement A prolonged strike was al
most always to the disadvantage of labor
Capital might suffer. but the probability
was that labor would suffer more A
strike meant direct, practical loss to
labor, and while in the end IL might force
an increase Of wages, it was not likely
that the increase would make good the
actual loss during the suspension of work
Mr.. Hopkins said he was not in favor
OF compulsory arbitration or of the right
20 appeal by Injunction to the courts, ex-
cept when ii was the only remedy TO pre-
vent violence The law should be enforc-
ca, properly protected, and persons VINO
were willing to work should be able TO
rely on the law to see that the oppor-
tunity was afforded.
The witness said that the relative rate
of wages had considerably increased dur
ing the last fifty years. and that the social
condition Ga labor had been greatly bet
tered during the same time.
referring again to the American Thread |
Company Mr.. Hopkins said that the COM
pany had never tried cooperation, prem |
ium paying, profit sharing. Industrial CO. |
partnership, or anything of that kind. |
Norkmen We're suspicious of the employ
ers. and under such a system would al
ways he in doubt as 10 whether they were
receiving all they were entitled to.