Evening star., 1902-03-18
THE EIGHT-HOUR BILL
ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST
THE HEASURE TODAY.
Judges Payson and McCammon
Against Its Passage and Mr..
Gompers for It.

Argument for and against the eight-hour
bill was made today before the House COM
mittee on labor The morning session of
the committee was taken up by Judge l..
E. Payson reresenting number of gov
ernment contractors. including the Newport
News Shipbuilding Company and the Union
Iron Works of San Francisco. In the after
noon Judge ]. K McCammon, representing
the Cramps, Bethlehem and Homestead
steel works. followed Judge Paysons line
of argument against the bill and President
Gompers of the American Federation of
Labor concluded in favor of that measure.
The committee room was crowded with
spectators representing both sides of the
controversy, among whom were Mr. Ed
ward Cramp of the shipbuilding firm of
that name and James O'Connell president
of the International Association Of Ma
chnists.
Judge Payson argued that the eight-honr
bill would affect every industry in the
country, either directly or indirectly, and
this effect would be against the best in
terests of the industry and of no benefit to
the laboring classes.
After Judge Payson had continued for
some time, addressing himself seemingly,
to Mr.. Gompers, he said:
Il want any statements | make chal-
lenged If they are not entirely correct
Mr. Gompers demurred at this arrange
ment, as it came, so he said, too late. IF
l should begin TO challenge the misstate-
ments of the gentleman now he said "it
might be construed that / had indorsed
the many misstatements he has already
made
Judge McCammon's Argument.
Judge McCammon opened his argument
in saying that in its presentation on behalf
of certain companies and individuals inter-
ested in government contracts, he dis
claimed any opposition either TO the theory
of those who advocated eight hour sys-
tenn or to the practical application Of such
system where the consent Of the various
trades and manufacturers producing SINH
lar articles contracted for by the govern
ment is unanimous. This consent he ex-
planned, must of necessity be practically
universal else the advantage must be with
the eSta bllshment which employs men to
work ten or twelve hours in producing sub
stantially the same product as those work
ing shorter hours Our opposition is to no
theory, to no principle, but is directed
against the vicious attempt to compel
government contra ctor to be placed at a
disadvantage in connection with producers
In the same line of business il the bill un-
der discussion should become a law
Judge McCammon then made an ANALYSIS
of the bill, dwelling with emphasis upon
shall not require laborer or mechanic to
work over eight hours in one calendar day,
and in addition provides that such laborer
shall not even be permitted to work more
than eight hours in one calendar day.
Here we have even in concrete form"
protested the speaker earnestly, the evil
OF which bitter complaint is made
A Purely Sentimental Bill.
Judge McCammon chara cterzed the bill
as a purely sentimental one, framed re-
gardless OF the vital consequences that
would inevitably follow It's passage He
warned the committee of the position III
which it put the working men.
In conclusion Judge McCammon said: A
uniform restriction to eight hours for all
sorts and conditions of work and workmen
Is unwise, unnatural and unsafe. The most
patient and scientific research on the part
OF small body Of men cannot entitle them
to lay down a law of so drastic a nature as
this, and which reaches to every conceiv-
able condition and variation of trade. The
constant immutable advancement of social
conditions cannot be tampered with in such
short-sighted manner as is attempted in
this bill"