The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1906-08-12
SHONTS FAV0RS
-COOL|E LABOR
ON CANAL
AND SAYS 1T is ~ NO WAY A
VIOLATION or TIL EIGHT
HOUR LAW.
IN REPLY TO CoMpERS
Again Asserts His views--ls
Favor Rather Than Hard
ship to Work Ten Hours.

hi
New York Aug, Chairman
Shonts of the Panama canal commits
sion who arrived today gave out 4
statement tonight with regard to the
statement issued by President Com.
pers of the Amercaa Federation of
Labor.
Shonts said in part:
"The eight hour law does not apply
to uns killed labor on the lsthmus OF
Panama. The entire present unskilei
labor force ~ alien. We cannot secure
this class of unskilled labor from the
United States It is therefore not to b
seen why a law passed in the interes
of American labor al nome should be
made applicable to alien labor who
probably heard of its existence Its
application would have increased the
labor cost of the canal several million
dollars. The American laborer in this
country would have to pay his share
of the consequent increases in tax
N'iNAi "ANAOhl Aiiy NP-it lleiotltA btilt
fit to himself.
AT the time of my interview with
Gompers. In discussing the eight hour
law aside from what | have already
said stated that my understanding
of the reason for the enactment of
the eight hour law in this country
was primarily to give to the highest
type of labor in the world longer
hours for recreation and improvement
but that with the lowest Glars of labor
us at Panama il was more helpful and
improving, more IN their interests and
more an act of kindness than other
wise to permit them to work ten
hours a day and pay them for it,
because they are paid by the hour
"As 10 the statement of Gompers
that the existing law excludes Chinese
lahorers and coolies from the United
States or any of its possessions and
that the Panama canal zone is an
American possession and that it Is as
much violat on of the law to bring
Chinese coolies there as il is in Other
portions Of our country. | can only
say that the commission has secured
the opinion of the highest legal au
thortias of the government that such
law does not apply to the canal zone.
THE law excluding the Chinese
from the United States and its pos
sessions was passed in March, 1903, |
and specifically set forth that such /
laws should only be applicable to the |
territory at that time subject to an
thority of the United States The canal |
zone was acquired subsequent TO that |
date. and congress has not extended |
its provisions so as to embrace the
canal zone.
The canal must be dug, and the
first requisite is TO have labor to die
1t. We do not believe it wise or eco
nomicai to depend only on Wet India
negroes. We cannoj secure unskilled
labor in sufficient volume from the
United States. 1t Is therefore not in
competition with our own labor. ana
any agreement entered into will pro
vide for The return of the Chinese di
rect 10 China upon completion of ser
vice on the canal work.
I'm conversation with Gompers, the
well known views of Shonts as 10 N
abor on the isthmus, both with re lf
,pect to the possibility Of future en- q
lloyment of Chinese aud otherwise. In
were practically set forth as above +
md any contrary understanding must +
have been due to m;sapprehen ion of +
his fears.