The Washington times., 1913-02-12
COMMERCE BOARD
DIVIDED IN OPINION
OF EIGHT T-HOURLAW
]. w. Leverton Questions Right
Of Directors to Oppose
Measure in Congress.

That a large number Of the mem
bers OF the Chamber of Commerce are
in favor Of the proposed eight-hour
Law for women employees in the Dis
trict was made evident at the meet
ing OF the Chamber at the New Willard
last night. The number was not quite
large enough to prevent the chambers s
Endorsement Of the action of the board
Of directors in opposing the measure
before Congress. but this Endorsement
came by a close vote after one Of the
hardest fights the chamber has wit
Messed in a long time.
The issue was brought up by Joseph
W. Leverton. who challenged the right
Of the directors to take action in such
a matter Il would like to know" said
Mr.. Levcrton, where the board of di-
rectors gets it's authority to act for the
Chamber OF Commerce on such a mat
ter as this. According to the bylaws.
the directors have right to act FOR
the chamber in matters of business, but
not on such an issue as this"
Chaplin Brown, general counsel for the
chamber, upheld the right Of the d.
rectors in instructing Secretary Thomas
Grant to appear before the committee
and oppose the bill, declaring that there
vas not sufficient time in which to
present II to the whole chamber.
Acted for Directors.
President Callahan stated that Mr..
Grant had acted IN the name of the dill
rectors and not In the name of the en-
tire Chamber. as had been stated in the
newspapers Odell s. Smith then moved
the endorsement Of the directors stand.
xx-sfn "a he
but o. p Metzerott Immediately moved
a reconsideration, claiming that those
in favor of the bill should be given a
hearing, and this motion carried.
P ]. Ryan, of the Central Labor
Union, moved to amend the Smith mo-
tion. by deferring action until more
thorough investigation could be had.
3Ie declared the members Of the cham
ber were not familiar with the detSfls
Of the bill, and should not be made TO
vote on something they knew nothing
about. It developed here that there
was no copy of the bill in the house
at the time. 20 II could not be read.
Charles l. Evans suggested that as
the chamber has a committee on law
and legislation, the matter should jrop-
erly be referred to that committee.
I've are not prepared 70 Vote SAID
Il
and should not put itself on record
without a thorough investigation. 1t
were better that this Chamber take no
action at ali than to take hasty action.
Albert Schulteis, Joseph Strasburger,
Washington Topham, and others spoke
against the bill and upheld the stand of
the directors. Mr.. Schulteis declared
II would give Baltimore merchants a
great advantage over Washington. Jo-
seph Strasburger cited the inconven-
fence that would be caused in his own
store as result of the enactment of
such a law, and so did A. c. LuheT.
who employs manicurists in his barber
shop.
Not Prepared.
D. p. Metzerott said he was not pre-
pared to vote on the merits Of this par
ticular bill and did not think the Cham |
her was.
I'VE must keep up with other States |
In the protection Of the health and |
welfare Of all the citizens" said Mr.. |!
Metzerott There is a law In Balti- |
more, not SO stringent. perhaps, as the |
one proposed for the District, but |
stringent enough to have met with Sc |
we're opposition by Baltimore merchants. |
II was passed largely through the e. |
forts OF one Baltimore society girl, |
and the merchants themselves now ad- |
init II is working finely. 1t is to the |
interest of the public that all laborers |
be kept In good health.
The action of the directors con-
tinued Mr.. Metzerott, may have been (,
legal, but Il was certainly not wise. II 1
have proposed amendments or offered a