Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-02-27
sHolrzl HOURS TOR WOMEN
1sv R. Y. fsttsr Advocates it-
 Othery Who Spoke.

1aTJIOTu, r6U Al'-Adpltdi anu labor clashed at the capital yesterday at the hearings before the committee on labor. The hearings consumed over three hours and at times the discussion was of the heated order. The committee room and the adjoin- ing room were filled to overfl0wing and every large manufacturing in terest In the state was represented in some capacity.
 Senator Chase, chairman of the |committee, announced that the com mittee would take up jointly the bills |concerning hours of employment for women and children and concerning hours of employment for minors and women. Both bills had practically the same purpose, which was to limit the number of hours of employment in any one week to fifty-fiye hours. Henry Titmas and John E. Sedden spoke in favor of the bills. Mary Jansen, cotton spinner. told the committee she represented fifty-six other women who wanted the bills passed. She said she has been work ling at the looms for years and has to work harder and more hours now than when she started. The hours have not been cut down, but her pay has.
 John Hedden of Taftville, repre- Isented the Textile Workers, favored the bills, saying he had been sent las a delegate for that purpose. He was full of resentment and addressed some scathing remarks to the com mittee.) Thomas Biggerstaff of Bal- Itic, also a delegate appointed to favor the bills, told the committee that he has to care for 122 looms now and a man had to be up to date or no one wanted him. Senator Keeney of the lcommittee asked the speaker many questions about looms and other things.
 May Robinson, a cotton spinner, said that shorter hours would make the girls have more interest in their work As it is now they are ready to drop from exhaustion when it comes 5 o'clock at night. She told iof conditions in England where it was illegal to run looms over four hours at stretch.
 | Representative Conner of Enfield made a strong argument in favor of the passage of the bills. Representa- 1tive Phelan of Bridgeport favored the bills as did Charles J. Donaghue of Derby.
 Rev Rockwell Harmon Potter of this city said he desired to stand up and be counted, not because he work ed sixty hours a week, but because he thought the general public was increasingly sensitive in the matter of employing women and children lsixty hours a week. He asked the committee when they made law on this matter to put in good set of teeth. He said: T shall be proud of my state if you put this law on the statute books E. M Roszelle of this city also spoke in favor of the bill.
 One bill considered separately was an eight-hour law for public em- ployes. the first section of which pro- vides that "eight hours shall consti- tute a days work for all laborers, workmen Or mechanics now or there after employed by or on behalf of the commonwealth, or of any county therein, or of any city or town which has accepted the provisions of Sec tion 20 of Chapter 106 of the revised laws" Representative Phelan, who drew the bill. favored it and said it simply asks the senate to go on record as having an eight-hour law. Charles E. Donaghue favored it also.
 In opposing 1t Charles B. Gross pointed out that the bill was defect i've with reference to our laws be- cause the framer of it who copied from the Massachusetts law had copied it in its entirety and Section
 20. Chapter 106, related to another state. He opposed 1t, however. and said its passage would affect the state
 in the matter of getting our docu- ments, etc.
 Newton Brainard of the Case, backward ( Brainard company, VII. son H. Lee of New Haven and other printers opposed 1t, saying it would seriously interfere with the getting out of state work and would affect all the printers of the state in de- priving them of time and a half pay for overtime work. Representative Kingsbury, of the Farmers associa- tion. representing that body. opposed IA