The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-05-23
C. '. BoeAcKI, Phone $50. "A cemmsrcs -
S-HOURSAND THECANAL
QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION
 OF THE LAW.
Matter of Importance Which VIII Have to Be Passed Upon in the Near Future-The Views of
 Daniel Davenport.
Advertiser Bureau,
 Colorado Building,

One of the most important questions with which the Panama Canal Com mission will shortly have to deal is whether the present eight-hour law, Act of August 1. 1892, applies to the construction of the Panama Canal, and whether. if passed, the eight-hour bill now before Congress will so apply.
 Not only are thousands of prospective contractors and sub-contractors vitaliy interested in a decision on these points, but also the public at large as the ap- plication of either the present law or the pending bill would extend the time of construction at least two years and increase its cost by many millions of dollars. It Is understood that the American Anti-Boycott Association, which includes in its membership many builders and dredgers and others who may become directly or indirectly interested in canal contracts, will un- dertake to secure a decision from the proper officials. In this event, Mir. Daniel Davenport of Bridgeport, Conn.,. the executive agent of the association, who has been so promiscuously identi- fled with the opposition to the eight hour bill, will have charge of the case.
 The leaders of organized labor are also looking into this matter carefully, for although the canal will be located far from the United States, 1t will be dug on American territory or territory under the Jurisdiction of the United States, and be constructed and owned by the Government, and the application of the eight-hour principle to a Gov ernment work of this magnitude would not only be a triumph but have a far reaching. and, they believe, wholesome moral effect. On the other hand, those who, like MT. Daveiport, regard the present eight-hour law as vicious and the bill for It's extension as socialistic, hold that under no circumstances should either be so applied.
 It is argued by some that as the ca nal zone is entirely under the control of the Canal Commission, acting. of course. under the supervision of the Secretary of War, and by the direction of the President, the eight-hour act of 1892 does not ex proprio vigore apply to the zone, and that until Congress shall determine otherwise, the matter rests entirely with the commission. It is further represented that as the canal will necessarily be constructed so largely by labor other than from the United States, the commissions will not restrict such labor to eight hours a day.
 But while it is not probable that the commission would undertake to enforce this law should the canal be construct ed directly under it's supervision, what khe prospective contractors want to know is whether they would be exempt if the work should be done under con tracts, and they should be fortunate enough to secure some of them. In the absence of an authoritative opinion in advance, they fear the question might be raised at a later time by the labor organizations at home, and they might be heavily mulcted.
 Of even greater consequence to the members of the Anti-Boycott Associa- kton. is the matter of the application of the eight-hour bill. That provides for the employment of labor on all kinds of Government work for only eight hours day, and the question Is whether 1t would aply to the manu- lecturers of engines, dredges, spikes, picks, shovels steam -shovels, cotton duck, stone cement, carts, wagons, derricks, windlasses, and the thousands and thousands of articles which will have to be supplied for the canal. These articles must be manufactured in the United States under contract or sub contract, and while labor on the 18th mus may be exempt from the opera tions of the present act, the impression prevails that the pending bill will cov- CT all contracts for materials furnished from the United States as the first clause specifically includes "every con tract hereafter made for or on behalf of the United States, etc.
 Tn discussing this subject, Mir. Daven- port said:
 Tn opposing the eight-hour bill I spoke for the allied interests which I represented in part and incidentally for the great interests which are con cerned in doing public work for the Government in the nature of dredging
 l., rTA1r
 ple that will have to do, probably. with the building of the Panama Canal. In 1892 Congress passed law which made it unlawful for any contractor or sub-contractor doing work upon the public works to require or permit any laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar day, and further imposed the savage pen alty upon any contractor or sub-con- tractor who intentionally permitted any man to work more than eight hours on any such work in one calendar day of making him liable to a fine of q, ,000 or imprisonment for six months, or both, at the option of the judge before whom he was tried.
 But the pending eight-hour bill piles on the agony far beyond that un- der the law as 1t stands today Any contractor who intentionally violates
 
 any sub-contractor who violates the present law is liable to that penalty. But the eight-hour bill leaves that law still in force and proceeds further and makes the contractor liable to heavy fine; that, is a penalty of $5 for every man employed, whether he does it in- tentionally or not, not only for him. self but for the sub-contractor, and whether the sub-contractor is inten- tlonally violating the law or not. In other words, it is proposed by act of Congress to make the contractor re- sponsible for $5 per day for every man whom the sub-contractor may permit to work more than the allotted time. Now the question is whether the eight hour law and the eight-hour bill, If 1t passes, with all these severe penalties, are to be applied to the construction o1 the Panama canal"
 R. H. Watkins.