Black padding.-Cut either with or without V's on the front edges and to extend from shoulder seam to the bottom of coat, reenforced with two thicknesses of black silesia, placed on with four rows of stitching. All as shown in the standard sample. Buttons.-Gilt United States army standard (except that the name of the manufacturer of the coat should be stamped on the back, instead of the name of the manufacturer of the button). Six coat, large, securely sewn on with linen thread and ends fastened off, 8 coat, small, 3 in each cuff, securely fastened by strips of silesia and stitching, and 1 on each shoulder, securely sewn on with linen thread. All as shown in the standard sample.

Hooks and eyes.-Two black japanned hooks and eyes at collar and one hook properly placed on left fore part with silk loop on right fore part. All as shown in the standard sample.

Silk thread. Black silk thread to be used for all stitching and buttonholes. Letter "A" for machine stitching, and "B" for buttonholes. Size of silk for buttonholes and stitching may vary according to machines used.

In every case standard buttonholes and stitchings required.

Lining. To be of black lasting; pleated in center of back; turned up and left open all around bottom; with a reenforcement of 17-ounce dark-blue cloth, of proper size and shape, stitched on below arm scye. All as shown in the standard sample.

Workmanship and finish.—The coat to be clean, well made, and pressed in a workmanlike manner; to show no raw edges outside, nor defective stitching in any part of the garment. To be like or equal to the standard sample in all particulars.

Marking and size tickets. To have sewed on each coat, inside the lining near bottom of right skirt, a piece of standard label cloth, showing the name of the contractor, date of contract, and depot, in indelible ink, with a blank space at bottom for the inspector's name. Each coat also to have attached to the collar a printed ticket showing size and breast measure.

Measures to fit the following sizes (18), viz:

NOTE. A variation of inch in length of coat and sleeve and not to exceed inch (in excess) in the collar will be permitted in the abve measurements.

Adopted July 2, 1907, in lieu of specifications of April 6, 1906 (No. 802), which are canceled.

GEORGE RUHLEN,

Deputy Quartermaster-General, U. S. Ármy,
Acting Quartermaster-General.

Mr. PAYSON. Now, I think, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that I will not burden the record with any more of these exhibits. What I have said is illustrated, as I understand, by the purchasing agents in the entire field of contracts for these two great Departments. That is all I care to put in this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Then what is next? Is there somebody here to be heard in opposition to the bill?

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM H. FLETCHER, OF HOBOKEN, N. J.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I come here as the representative of the New York and New Jersey branch of the Metal Trades Association. I also come as a representative of my own concern, William H. Fletcher & Co.. We are in the business of contracting for steam vessels, and more particularly for engines and other equipment and motive power. I also appear before this committee as an individual and as a workingman. I do not want to appear here to be in opposition to labor. That is not my purpose. I am speaking for labor because I believe that in myself I represent honest labor, because I do labor and have done so for many years, and I believe I am talking for the best interests of the men in my employ.

I am opposed to the bill on the general principle that it is an interference on the part of the Government with a private contract. I am opposed to the bill in that it is a class discrimination. In other words, it discriminates against one class of labor in favor of another. If the argument that I have heard here to-day-and I have heard both sides of it, both from the chairman and the gentleman representing the Newport News Shipbuilding Company if that argument, as I have heard it, is correct, and the construction of the chairman is correct, that this does not apply to such things as can be bought in the open market, I contend that it is not fair to discriminate against the mechanic in favor of the seamstress, or the other way, that it is not fair to discriminate against the seamstress in favor of the mechanic. I do not think that is fair and just. If all men are equal before the law, all men should be equally protected by the law. one class of labor is to be benefited by legislation, it is only fair and right and proper that all labor should be benefited by legislation.

If

Now, I claim that this particular bill, if I understand the wording of it, is intended to produce an eight-hour workday generally. I am inclined somewhat to agree with the chairman in the expression of his opinion, that this clause which refers to the exceptions or exemptions of certain parts that might be bought in the open market might be construed, if so desired, to exempt certain classes of materials used by the Government. Of course it is open to both constructions. It will produce discussion and difference, and must do so for a long time, until something definite is decided on that particular question. But I am inclined to think that it can be so construed, and probably will be so construed at the start, and I also believe that the intent of the law, the intent of those who are in favor of it, is eventually to produce the eight-hour day which Mr. Gompers desires, which no doubt will be all right, and which I will welcome myself, when the proper time comes and the conditions of the business warrant it. But I claim it is a discrimination against the shipbuilding interests of this country more than any other interest you can name to-day; and when you are discriminating against that business you are discriminating against a business that is almost on its last legs. The shipbuilding plants throughout this country, taken as a whole, are not in what might be called a prosperous condition by any means. There is nothing to encourage the building of the merchant marine or merchant vessels of any kind, either by subsidy or by the demands of business.

We are told, those of us who are in the business, that the reason why vessels are not built in this country is because they cost too much. That is true. They do cost a great deal more here than elsewhere, and therefore the interest on the cost, the interest on the amount of money involved in the business, is so great that the income is not sufficient to warrant the running of American lines, and therefore our commerce is turned over to our foreign competitors. If that is the case, if that is a true statement, then it is because of the high cost of labor, which enters as an element of production as high as 90 per cent, to put it mildly, of what goes into the steamship. I am considering this from the shipbuilding standpoint. We may buy a manufactured plate from the Carnegie Steel Company. To us it is a piece of raw material, but it is a finished product with the Carnegie Steel Company. We may buy a forging from the Bethlehem Steel Company. It is our raw material, but it is to them a finished product. Our purpose is to gather from these various points and plants the products of the various manufacturers and to proceed with the fabrication; to gather these things together and to produce a ship. Therefore I think I am perfectly safe in stating that from our standpoint at least 90 per cent of the cost is labor. Then, if the cost of the vessel is too great, it must be because of one of two things: Either that the employers themselves or the workingmen themselves, who work for them, are not sufficiently skilled artisans in the trade to produce their product in competition with others more skilled, or else because the amount paid to labor is in excess of what is paid by our competitors, and therefore the cost is too great.

Now there is something what that something is you gentlemen can perhaps define better than I can-that is killing and stopping the construction of steamboats and vessels in this country to-day, except on the Great Lakes, and there the situation is governed by a different condition; I might also add the great rivers, like the Mississippi. But for the coastwise trade and the trans-Atlantic trade, the trade with foreign countries, there is something that stops the building and the maintenance of vessels, and we are told that it is the cost to produce them. Be that as it may, the fact exists that we do not get the vessels to build; we do not get the orders, the contracts, to build them.

If you will canvass the shipyards in this country to-day you will find, I think, that a majority of them are busy with Government work, and are occupied very little on commercial work just at the present moment. I presume that the larger shipyards-I can not state this as a positive fact, but it is my belief-the large shipyards, such as that at Newport News and perhaps the Union Iron Works, when it was running, and the Bath Iron Works, in Maine-of them it is safe to say that at least 60 per cent of their work on hand to-day is Government work, and a straggling percentage of commercial work.

That, of course, might be used as an argument in favor of this bill. It might be said as an argument in favor of this bill that it will add to the cost of the vessels. I do not think it will be disputed that it will add something to the cost of production.

Mr. HOLDER. If that is so, how does it come that the capital invested in shipbuilding interests has almost doubled in the last five years?

Mr. FLETCHER. I will come to that in a moment. Everything I have said here, gentlemen, you can almost see, yourselves, by riding in the cars between New York and Washington. I do not think the manufacturer or builder of the vessel should care materially, unless the thing were sprung upon him by a contract. I do not understand that it could be done now by the Government, because that would be retroactive. Anything that tends to increase the cost of production tends to decrease the amount of production within certain limits. There is a question now as to how many battle ships the Government will build. I think now the Atlantic coast is almost unprotected. But I think the tendency of this bill would be to decrease even on the part of the Government the amount of work which it would do.

This bill is particularly bad, because it is impossible, I believe, and impracticable at least, to try to work in the same shop or the same yard with the same class of mechanics eight hours on one branch of the work and for the same wages, or any wages, I might say, and nine hours on the other side of the question, on commercial work. If we are not building ships to-day because the cost of ships is too great, would it be a good business proposition, considered from the standpoint either of the employer or the employee, for one to operate against his own business? If we can keep our shipyards full of work and keep our men busy, we are perfectly content. It is immaterial to us, as business men, provided we can get the business, whether the hours are seven, or eight, or nine, or ten; preferably the shorter hours. But we appear here in opposition to the bill-at least I appear in opposition to it, and I am honest in my expression against this billbecause I believe that the conditions of the business I am in do not warrant a shorter hour or anything else that would tend to increase the expense of producing vessels. I think that is something that is open to investigation. I think it is a true statement, or I would not make it; and therefore I oppose the bill, because, if it is passed and the shorter hours in Government work are entered upon in the private plants, it will destroy the organization and it will destroy the harmony that should exist in the organization; and we contend, in addition to that, that the business conditions do not warrant the enforcement of the eight-hour law.

I contend that the hours of labor can be helped by these gentlemen who represent labor and be helped by you gentlemen who represent the people at large by legislation if you will follow the natural lines of evolution and the natural laws that govern business. If you work in opposition to those laws, you can pass the legislation, undoubtedly, but the question is, Can you produce the work? Is it not almost the same to attempt to oppose a business law as it would be to attempt to oppose a natural law? For example, we may legislate to the effect that crops shall grow twice a year in this section. of the world, but we know they will not grow twice a year here, because that would be in opposition to natural law. I believe that the time is not ripe in the particular business that I am in to do anything that will add in any way to the cost of the construction of a vessel.

The question of hours, so far as I can see it, to the employer is no different from what it is to the employee. I should be very glad of shorter hours, but I do not see how I can grant them and do business, and therefore I oppose that thing, while I would gladly welcome it otherwise, if it were practicable and could be done.